So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[sk!mom]

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

We should be "tolerant" of those who aren't for equality? Seriously, please think about that. That logic would suggest that we should have been tolerant of those who thought "separate but equal" schools were good enough. Or those who used the Bible to say that women were less and didn't need to vote.

Those who haven't had equality have been "tolerant" long enough.

 

[aVASTGrl]

I am actually still on the fence about it. I will admit that when Michigan voted on same *** marriage I did vote against it. From the religious standpoint I thought it was wrong. Part of me still does, and I'm sorry if people think I'm wrong or ignorant or intolerant or whatever. We all have the right to feel the way we do about it. I have tried and tried to get past how I feel. I have nothing against gay people as individuals. I met "the Fabulous Beekman Boys" (Josh and Brent, winners of season 21 of The Amazing Race) and they are very sweet. I once worked with a guy I thought might be gay (never knew for sure) and he was a very kind and nice person but personally I really don't "know" anyone that is gay, and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about gay marriage. I think back about how many people couldn't stand black people and white people being together and then marrying. Some were strongly opposed, and some probably still are. I never understood that. Black. White. People. No difference. I had absolutely no problem with it, and still don't. Skin color is so unimportant to me. It's how a person treats others, and what's in their heart, and their character, that is what matters. So then I think I should feel the same way about gay marriage. Why should it bother me? It doesn't affect me. I'm not forced to marry a woman. Gay marriage doesn't make my marriage less valid. So I struggle with how I feel about it, but am willing to admit that I struggle. As I said, the religious part of me thinks it's wrong. I do believe in God and he created woman for man. But then the other part of me thinks "who cares, live and let live."

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

You are absolutely right in that you have, and should have, the right to believe as you do, even though I disagree with you. I have an Aunt that struggles with this in the same way that you do, and I have had many really interesting, fruitful conversations with her about this subject! I believe that religious institutions have the right to marry, or not marry, whomever they choose.

HOWEVER might I point out to you that marriage is a civil contract; atheists marry, as do people of faiths that accept marriage equality. We do not deny those of us who value freedom FROM religion the right to marry, so why would you deny that right to another class? PP is right, in that your contention that it should be a State's rights issue is tantamount to Separate But Equal. And I think we can all agree that that is wrong. Please don't forget that not everyone believes in your definition of sin, and some of us don't believe in it at all! And we do not formulate our country's laws based on religious laws.

I definitely applaud you for taking the time to seriously think about the topic, and question it. I know from experience how difficult that is for a person of faith. Peace!

 

[LJSquishy]

I was never against it and never felt one's attraction to the same gender was a choice. I find it extremely difficult to understand those who view it as a choice and those who bring up religion as their reason. I have family members on my husband's side who don't support it and it saddens me that they feel that way and I admittedly have far less respect for them than I would otherwise.

 

[pryncess527]

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

I respect and admire your willingness to be honest about your personal opinions in this forum.

The rights of human beings should never be up to a vote. My rights are inalienable, and were granted to my by my creator. They are not granted by a voting body. They aren't even granted by the Supreme Court, only acknowledged and protected by their decision. All men were created equal, and we all deserve equal protection under the law. That is what the Supreme Court decided, and I fail to understand how anyone can criticize that.

I do understand your point about tolerance. And now that the legal issue is settled, I think we might start to see more tolerance on this issue. I can respect that people hold religious beliefs that gay marriage is wrong (to the extent that I can respect any belief I do not agree with). I can not respect the desire to legislate those beliefs, because that is the very definition of bigotry -- thinking that you have the right to impose, by law, your belief system on others.

So, with the legal question out of the way, I can find it in my heart to be more tolerant of those who are anti-gay, because their beliefs no longer deny other human beings equal rights.

 

[aristocatz]

I am actually still on the fence about it. I will admit that when Michigan voted on same *** marriage I did vote against it. From the religious standpoint I thought it was wrong. Part of me still does, and I'm sorry if people think I'm wrong or ignorant or intolerant or whatever. We all have the right to feel the way we do about it. I have tried and tried to get past how I feel. I have nothing against gay people as individuals. I met "the Fabulous Beekman Boys" (Josh and Brent, winners of season 21 of The Amazing Race) and they are very sweet. I once worked with a guy I thought might be gay (never knew for sure) and he was a very kind and nice person but personally I really don't "know" anyone that is gay, and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about gay marriage. I think back about how many people couldn't stand black people and white people being together and then marrying. Some were strongly opposed, and some probably still are. I never understood that. Black. White. People. No difference. I had absolutely no problem with it, and still don't. Skin color is so unimportant to me. It's how a person treats others, and what's in their heart, and their character, that is what matters. So then I think I should feel the same way about gay marriage. Why should it bother me? It doesn't affect me. I'm not forced to marry a woman. Gay marriage doesn't make my marriage less valid. So I struggle with how I feel about it, but am willing to admit that I struggle. As I said, the religious part of me thinks it's wrong. I do believe in God and he created woman for man. But then the other part of me thinks "who cares, live and let live."

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

I respect your opinion & I also respect your bravery for posting your honest opinion on a thread that seems to have the majority's view going the other way.

What I still cannot understand though is, why people feel that their own religious beliefs should control an entire country's rights-?? I respect that you have religious beliefs, but your religion is definitely not the only religion in this country. I think the Supreme Court had no choice but to step in, because states were allowing religion to control the decisions and rights for everyone.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

First, let me say, I am tolerant of all the opinions that people have, whether for or against the decision. Opinions don't hurt anyone, but actions do. Nothing in this decision can or will stop people from having their opinions; it can only change people's actions that would otherwise hurt people. That being said, I am also a Michigan resident. I voted against the original law, and I would do so again. I have quite a few gay friends, so as you say, maybe that's the difference. That being said, you know gay people, too. Statistics vary, but generally it's said that up to 13% of people everywhere are gay. So, its likely that 10% of everyone you know is gay....you just probably don't know that they are. They don't make a big deal of what goes on in their own bedrooms, so you have no reason to know. I mean, do you go around obviously promoting your heterosexual lifestyle? No, you don't. And neither do most everyday, working-class gay folks. But, I digress.

I bolded the language above because I find it telling. The time to take up that issue would have been back in 1803, before Marbury v. Madison. Ultimately, there is a reason why we have 9 people who decide what the ultimate legal standpoint of our Federal government should be. It's because the Federal government needs to protect all Americans, regardless of state of residence, gender, color, creed, etc. The Federal government cannot allow the people within a state (who are, to a certain extent, a select minority group) to vote to endorse actions that would infringe upon the rights of American citizens. The Federal government must treat all its citizens equally, regardless of what special interest groups (including the voting population of a given state) may think. It's understandable that this should rankle you a bit; the idea that your state's decision might be ignored by the greater, more perfect Union, but it's certainly not a new complaint. Our country went to war with itself for 5 years over this very same issue. But ultimately, it is the right way of doing things. The Federal government could not allow the Southern states to continue to harm its black citizens, and now it cannot allow some states to vote to deprive its gay citizens of the right to marriage.

Now the counter argument to this is, "What about my rights to religious freedom? Doesn't this ruling infringe on my sincerely held beliefs? Why am I not being treated 'equally' under the law?" Well, there's two answers to that question, both which involve the following line: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. To begin with, allowing gay marriage does not prohibit your free exercise of religion. You are allowed to continue believing whatever you want, and holding any opinions you may have about this situation. However, if the government were to say that gay people were not allowed to marry, that would constitute an "establishment of religion". That would be saying that something written in a Christian's holy book, or a Jewish person's holy book, or a Muslim person's holy book was the right way of doing things. The government cannot say that. It cannot promote any one religion (or even any 5 religions) above the others, or above the choice of "no religion". This is also why the arguments in all of the various gay marriage cases have sought, time and again, in vain, for a non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage. The lawyers in these cases need to make it something other than a religious opinion, because the government is religion blind. As of yet, in many many court cases, heard and tried by some of the brightest legal minds our country has to offer, no one has ever put forward a valid, non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage. And that is why the argument has failed.

Now a state that is subject to the whims and opinions of its voting public (a majority of which might belong to one particular religion) might choose to ignore these requirements, and enact a law which is, in essence, based upon a religious teaching. States do not have a lot of power to say "no" to their voting public, but the Federal government does. The Federal government can point it's long finger of law to the Constitution and say, "This is the law of the land. It is inviolate. It can only be interpreted, and we choose a body of legal professionals who are much better versed in its interpretation than you voters in the states are, and who have not been elected (and thus should theoretically be absent from the pressure to bend to the opinions of those who put them in office), to serve as our committee of Constitutional interpretation."

All of this is why we need the Federal government, and in particular the 9 people we have entrusted to interpret our Constitution, to keep the states in line.

 

[ashley0139]

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

This argument is ONLY ever used in relation to gay marriage. No one thinks we should be tolerant of murderers. No one thinks we should be tolerant of pedophiles. No one thinks we should be tolerant of the KKK. And no, I'm not tolerant of hate of gay people either.

 

[DopeyDame]

First, let me say, I am tolerant of all the opinions that people have, whether for or against the decision. Opinions don't hurt anyone, but actions do. Nothing in this decision can or will stop people from having their opinions; it can only change people's actions that would otherwise hurt people. That being said, I am also a Michigan resident. I voted against the original law, and I would do so again. I have quite a few gay friends, so as you say, maybe that's the difference. That being said, you know gay people, too. Statistics vary, but generally it's said that up to 13% of people everywhere are gay. So, its likely that 10% of everyone you know is gay....you just probably don't know that they are. They don't make a big deal of what goes on in their own bedrooms, so you have no reason to know. I mean, do you go around obviously promoting your heterosexual lifestyle? No, you don't. And neither do most everyday, working-class gay folks. But, I digress.

I bolded the language above because I find it telling. The time to take up that issue would have been back in 1803, before Marbury v. Madison. Ultimately, there is a reason why we have 9 people who decide what the ultimate legal standpoint of our Federal government should be. It's because the Federal government needs to protect all Americans, regardless of state of residence, gender, color, creed, etc. The Federal government cannot allow the people within a state (who are, to a certain extent, a select minority group) to vote to endorse actions that would infringe upon the rights of American citizens. The Federal government must treat all its citizens equally, regardless of what special interest groups (including the voting population of a given state) may think. It's understandable that this should rankle you a bit; the idea that your state's decision might be ignored by the greater, more perfect Union, but it's certainly not a new complaint. Our country went to war with itself for 5 years over this very same issue. But ultimately, it is the right way of doing things. The Federal government could not allow the Southern states to continue to harm its black citizens, and now it cannot allow some states to vote to deprive its gay citizens of the right to marriage.

Now the counter argument to this is, "What about my rights to religious freedom? Doesn't this ruling infringe on my sincerely held beliefs? Why am I not being treated 'equally' under the law?" Well, there's two answers to that question, both which involve the following line: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. To begin with, allowing gay marriage does not prohibit your free exercise of religion. You are allowed to continue believing whatever you want, and holding any opinions you may have about this situation. However, if the government were to say that gay people were not allowed to marry, that would constitute an "establishment of religion". That would be saying that something written in a Christian's holy book, or a Jewish person's holy book, or a Muslim person's holy book was the right way of doing things. The government cannot say that. It cannot promote any one religion (or even any 5 religions) above the others, or above the choice of "no religion". This is also why the arguments in all of the various gay marriage cases have sought, time and again, in vain, for a non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage. The lawyers in these cases need to make it something other than a religious opinion, because the government is religion blind. As of yet, in many many court cases, heard and tried by some of the brightest legal minds our country has to offer, no one has ever put forward a valid, non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage. And that is why the argument has failed.

Now a state that is subject to the whims and opinions of its voting public (a majority of which might belong to one particular religion) might choose to ignore these requirements, and enact a law which is, in essence, based upon a religious teaching. States do not have a lot of power to say "no" to their voting public, but the Federal government does. The Federal government can point it's long finger of law to the Constitution and say, "This is the law of the land. It is inviolate. It can only be interpreted, and we choose a body of legal professionals who are much better versed in its interpretation than you voters in the states are, and who have not been elected (and thus should theoretically be absent from the pressure to bend to the opinions of those who put them in office), to serve as our committee of Constitutional interpretation."

All of this is why we need the Federal government, and in particular the 9 people we have entrusted to interpret our Constitution, to keep the states in line.

This might be the best thing I've ever read on the Dis. thank you, thank you, thank you for taking the time to write such an eloquent and accurate post.

 

[bcla]

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

However, in our nation's history, historic civil rights cases have typically been decided by the courts on Constitutional grounds. Our courts exist in part to counter the "tyranny of the majority". If the majority were allowed to decide what's right for the entire country, it would have taken longer to rid our country of segregated schools, "colored" drinking fountains, anti-sodomy laws, etc. We entrust our courts to do what's right, even if it may be unpopular in some places.

Also - having a more or less uniform requirement that SSM is granted/recognized in all states is an important practical matter. The patchwork of different rules in each state made things difficult. It's been noted that nothing short of being married will grant someone the right to make decisions on behalf of a spouse. Many lifelong partners have been denied the right to see a dying partner by family members, and wills have been contested. If marriage isn't portable moving between states, there are all sorts of things that can happen. There were cases where someone moved to a different state, and all of a sudden they had to file income taxes federally as a married couple, but the state required tax filing as single.

Whether or not you like it or not, it's important to understand this is the law now, and at the very least for those in a business or governmental position to treat people as married. Whether or not it's personally repugnant is a different matter.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Dear ZephyrHawk: That was a wonderful explanation. Thank you!

 

[TeresaNJ]

I haven't and I won't. It will appear on this thread that almost everyone who at one point didn't believe in SSM, has come around to now believe in it. In actuality, the people who don't believe in it won't bother to post on this thread. They won't say it for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized, and bullied, although that is very sad. They should have the courage to voice & stand up for their convictions no matter what. Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California. You can believe what you want, but the majority of Americans do not believe in SSM, otherwise, it wouldn't have had to been illegally passed by the Supreme Court.

 

[ols386]

I was raised Catholic but we were a pretty liberal Catholic family as far as religious beliefs go. I've since strayed from the faith, but my parents always taught me to be open minded and tolerant, and for that I am grateful. So I never opposed the idea of marriage equality and honestly, can't completely understand why people have such problems with something that doesn't affect them in any way. To quote one of my fave songs right now, "mind your own biscuits and life will be gravy!"

I don't understand this either. I see a lot of posts on FB by folks against gay marriage, acting like gay marriage somehow affects them, and their religious beliefs.

It doesn't affect them. They can still worship the way they want, and no one is asking them to change their religious beliefs.

 

[aristocatz]

I haven't and I won't. It will appear on this thread that almost everyone who at one point didn't believe in SSM, has come around to now believe in it. In actuality, the people who don't believe in it won't bother to post on this thread. They won't say it for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized, and bullied, although that is very sad. They should have the courage to voice & stand up for their convictions no matter what. Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California. You can believe what you want, but the majority of Americans do not believe in SSM, otherwise, it wouldn't have had to been illegally passed by the Supreme Court.

Why do you say it has been "illegally passed"?? Also, wasn't it 37 states that recognized SSM prior to this ruling? That seems majority to me.

I'm also curious to know how same sex marriage affects you?

I'm not trying to bully or ostracize you, I'm just trying to understand the other point of view.....

 

[Teresa Pitman]

The good news about facts is that you don't have to believe in them! They are true just the same. So even if you don't believe in same-sex marriages, they are happening and they will continue to exist.

 

[Art 1]

I haven't and I won't. It will appear on this thread that almost everyone who at one point didn't believe in SSM, has come around to now believe in it. In actuality, the people who don't believe in it won't bother to post on this thread. They won't say it for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized, and bullied, although that is very sad. They should have the courage to voice & stand up for their convictions no matter what. Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California. You can believe what you want, but the majority of Americans do not believe in SSM, otherwise, it wouldn't have had to been illegally passed by the Supreme Court.

There are a lot of intolerant, tolerant people on the dis.

 

[aristocatz]

The good news about facts is that you don't have to believe in them! They are true just the same. So even if you don't believe in same-*** marriages, they are happening and they will continue to exist.

?? I"m not sure I understand your post.

ETA: oops sorry-I got your screen names mixed up!!!! Never mind!

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I haven't and I won't. It will appear on this thread that almost everyone who at one point didn't believe in SSM, has come around to now believe in it. In actuality, the people who don't believe in it won't bother to post on this thread. They won't say it for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized, and bullied, although that is very sad. They should have the courage to voice & stand up for their convictions no matter what. Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California. You can believe what you want, but the majority of Americans do not believe in SSM, otherwise, it wouldn't have had to been illegally passed by the Supreme Court.

Can you expound on your "illegally passed by the Supreme Court" comment? I'm unsure as to what you are trying to say here.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I am actually still on the fence about it. I will admit that when Michigan voted on same *** marriage I did vote against it. From the religious standpoint I thought it was wrong. Part of me still does, and I'm sorry if people think I'm wrong or ignorant or intolerant or whatever. We all have the right to feel the way we do about it. I have tried and tried to get past how I feel. I have nothing against gay people as individuals. I met "the Fabulous Beekman Boys" (Josh and Brent, winners of season 21 of The Amazing Race) and they are very sweet. I once worked with a guy I thought might be gay (never knew for sure) and he was a very kind and nice person but personally I really don't "know" anyone that is gay, and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about gay marriage. I think back about how many people couldn't stand black people and white people being together and then marrying. Some were strongly opposed, and some probably still are. I never understood that. Black. White. People. No difference. I had absolutely no problem with it, and still don't. Skin color is so unimportant to me. It's how a person treats others, and what's in their heart, and their character, that is what matters. So then I think I should feel the same way about gay marriage. Why should it bother me? It doesn't affect me. I'm not forced to marry a woman. Gay marriage doesn't make my marriage less valid. So I struggle with how I feel about it, but am willing to admit that I struggle. As I said, the religious part of me thinks it's wrong. I do believe in God and he created woman for man. But then the other part of me thinks "who cares, live and let live."

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

First, like others, I applaud your honesty.

My other two points, said before but I will try to reiterate in a short and sweet fashion are:

1. I will stand up for your right to believe gay marriage, or just about anything else, is wrong from "from the religious standpoint." However, laws in our country are absolutely NOT meant to be made on religious grounds and I cannot undersatnd why you want your religion legally forced on others---and I will stand against you, vehemently any time you or anyone else tries to do that.

2. Civil rights do not tend to pass in general elections. Ever. If the US did not allow congress at times and the Supreme court at other times to decide on civil rights, instead of putting it to a state by state popular vote--it is likely that YOU would not be allowed to vote at all to have voted against same sex marriage; and it is even more likely that none of your non white friends would have been able to do the same.

 

[pryncess527]

Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California.

Untrue. Maryland, Maine, and Washington all legalized same-sex marriage at the ballot box. And Minnesota defeated a measure that tried to ban it.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Why do you say it has been "illegally passed"?? Also, wasn't it 37 states that recognized SSM prior to this ruling? That seems majority to me.

I'm also curious to know how same *** marriage affects you?

I'm not trying to bully or ostracize you, I'm just trying to understand the other point of view.....

It is a state's rights issue. The Federal Government shouldn't have a say it it. Also, it was mainly passed by judges, not the people. When the people get to vote, it is almost always voted down. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get in a debate with anyone on how SSM affects me. That wasn't the initial question. I answered the OP's question. Also, whether it affects me or not isn't the issue, is it? There are many things that don't affect me that I don't believe in. Are you saying I should give up on my beliefs because something doesn't personally affect me, or do you just want to know why I haven't "come around"?