Gay Marriage Debate - Peachtree City, GA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Peachtree City, GA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Peachtree City opposes
Oppose
 
22
Support
 
13

Vote now in Peachtree City:

John Champion

Peachtree City, GA

#1 Jan 17, 2012
Why shouldn't everyone get equal rights?
Leila Chreiteh

Peachtree City, GA

#2 Jan 17, 2012
Stop making the LGBT community second class citizens for who they love.
Lindsey Nunn

Peachtree City, GA

#3 Jan 18, 2012
love is love.
Jessica Egan

Atlanta, GA

#4 Jan 18, 2012
Because I love my cousin and his boyfriend.
Fernando

Peachtree City, GA

#5 Jan 18, 2012
Because everyone deserves to be happy
No Name

Hoschton, GA

#6 Jan 23, 2012
All love is equal and all love is beautiful.
Correction Please

Moscow, Russia

#7 Jun 28, 2012
John Champion wrote:
Why shouldn't everyone get equal rights?
Everyone already has exactly the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Correction Please

Moscow, Russia

#8 Jun 28, 2012
Lindsey Nunn wrote:
love is love.
queer is queer.
Correction Please

Moscow, Russia

#9 Jun 28, 2012
No Name wrote:
All love is equal and all love is beautiful.
I think you're in the wrong forum. This is the homosexual marriage debate.
Vet

Houston, TX

#10 Jan 16, 2013
I'm looking for a good beautiful Mexican man he can be a illegal alien cause when i do find him I'll married him so i can give him legal status and the can Arrest and Deport all other immigrants.
John

San Francisco, CA

#11 Apr 19, 2013
Correction Please wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone already has exactly the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
That is incorrect. It is indeed a right as long as it comes with state and federal benefits. You cannot exclude a minority group from being treated equally in this manner.
Lol

Newnan, GA

#12 Apr 19, 2013
Im not gay but people should be able to marry whether gay or straight, I guess some people have nothing better to do than worry about sonmeone else. Hey I think all you fat people shouldnt be allowed to eat fast food, we all have our own opinions I guess, losers will always be losers, scumbags
tony

Peachtree City, GA

#13 Apr 27, 2013
god made man for woman period
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#14 Apr 27, 2013
tony wrote:
god made man for woman period
]

which would matter if we were a theocracy... since we are not ...it doesn't... period
Seen what it does

Potomac, MD

#15 May 19, 2013
Gay partnership ok
Gay Civil Union ok
Gay couple ok
No gay marriage, my Bible says its between a man and woman....
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#16 May 20, 2013
Seen what it does wrote:
Gay partnership ok
Gay Civil Union ok
Gay couple ok
No gay marriage, my Bible says its between a man and woman....
"Gay Civil Union ok
Gay couple ok"
Got you.. so they can be american citizens... just not with the same rights and privledges you have... simply because it goes against your beliefe system... right?... You do realize that there are over 1000 things that a legally married couple get that a couple with a c.u. do not. Now if you are ok with that, get a c.u. If you are married now get a quickie divorce and then a c.u. and see what it is like not to be equal in your own country.....
No gay marriage, my Bible says its between a man and woman..."
Monday morning civics lesson for you.... we are a republic... not a theocracy. So it does not matter what you believe your interpretation of your holy book says. It is a non issue in matters of the law.
Constitutional Thinking

Atlanta, GA

#17 May 21, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Gay Civil Union ok
Gay couple ok"
Got you.. so they can be american citizens... just not with the same rights and privledges you have... simply because it goes against your beliefe system... right?... You do realize that there are over 1000 things that a legally married couple get that a couple with a c.u. do not. Now if you are ok with that, get a c.u. If you are married now get a quickie divorce and then a c.u. and see what it is like not to be equal in your own country.....
No gay marriage, my Bible says its between a man and woman..."
Monday morning civics lesson for you.... we are a republic... not a theocracy. So it does not matter what you believe your interpretation of your holy book says. It is a non issue in matters of the law.
I believe this decision should be made by the individual States. The Federal government should have no sya in a marriage debate. Let the citizens of each State vote and thats that. If your state votes it in... great! If not, then stop trying to force your agenda on that state's people. Add a few more pages to the volumous federal tax code and now if your state accepts same-sex marriage you file that way federally as well. The everyone can migrate to the states that uphold their outlooks or stay and deal with it.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#18 May 21, 2013
Constitutional Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe this decision should be made by the individual States. The Federal government should have no sya in a marriage debate. Let the citizens of each State vote and thats that. If your state votes it in... great! If not, then stop trying to force your agenda on that state's people. Add a few more pages to the volumous federal tax code and now if your state accepts same-sex marriage you file that way federally as well. The everyone can migrate to the states that uphold their outlooks or stay and deal with it.
So you are against the loving decision?... right...
You are agaisnt the 14th equal protection amendment also.. right....
Constitutional Thinking

Atlanta, GA

#19 May 21, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are against the loving decision?... right...
You are agaisnt the 14th equal protection amendment also.. right....
First, keep in mind I don't have a dog in this fight. I just find the topic a very interesting argument.

I assume you are speaking to Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Specifically the Equal Protection Clause as defined by the SCOTUS.

So we are going to protect minorities, races, genders, and now split the hairs even further. Based on that line of thought an asian female who is lesbian and served in the Vietnam Conflict gets the utmost protection of their rights.

What I was saying if you read it was keep the government out of the decision making and let the states decide. However, I think the GLBT cummunity doesn't want this approach because of the one person, one vote perspective (also in the 14th Amendment). Simply, if its put to SCOTUS or Congress a few people decide what everybody must live by rather than let the people decide because we might not like the outcome.

As for Loving v. Virginia we once again talk about race. Are you saying that bay people are a race unto themselves? Irregardless, prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states. So what I am saying is that up until 1996 they had the right idea that could have been added upon by letting the states decide by a vote of its people whether they will legally accept gay marriage or not.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#20 May 21, 2013
Constitutional Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>
First, keep in mind I don't have a dog in this fight. I just find the topic a very interesting argument.
I assume you are speaking to Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Specifically the Equal Protection Clause as defined by the SCOTUS.
So we are going to protect minorities, races, genders, and now split the hairs even further. Based on that line of thought an asian female who is lesbian and served in the Vietnam Conflict gets the utmost protection of their rights.
What I was saying if you read it was keep the government out of the decision making and let the states decide. However, I think the GLBT cummunity doesn't want this approach because of the one person, one vote perspective (also in the 14th Amendment). Simply, if its put to SCOTUS or Congress a few people decide what everybody must live by rather than let the people decide because we might not like the outcome.
As for Loving v. Virginia we once again talk about race. Are you saying that bay people are a race unto themselves? Irregardless, prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states. So what I am saying is that up until 1996 they had the right idea that could have been added upon by letting the states decide by a vote of its people whether they will legally accept gay marriage or not.
First to be upfront, I have no horse in this race either, I am married, have no close friends or relatives who are homosexual to my knowledge. I simply hate u.s. citizens not having equal treatment.

Now as far as the 14th, Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This was used in Brown v to end segregated schools, In Reed v Reed where ist was used to strike down gender discrimination. How is this different with ssm?... Both blacks and women, and now as of 2009 homosexuals are all protected classes. So how do you get around a state saying that a certain segment of their citizens can choose who they want to marry, can enjoy all the legal perks (both monetary and legal) of being married, where as another section of their citizenry, a protected class, is not allowed the same rights under the law. To do this, per SCOTUS, the state must show an overwhelming states interest... which would be... what.......

You are correct in that Loving v was about race... however... the over all reaching meaning of loving is that States can not say who their citizens can marry. Which again harkens back to the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS has on more than one occasion said Marriage is a basic right. If this is true, then it is not up for vote. A state can no more vote against ssm, than they could against jewish/christian marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Peachtree City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Large Black Cat in Coweta County Oct 15 me 2
Qom Dave teagle????? (Oct '13) Oct 9 sambuca94 11
David Bebout Supplying Phony Letters of Intent (Dec '10) Oct 3 tradeco 52
Michael Priggins at Shakerag? Sep 20 Sandy 2
Edward Ray Sharpe Jr (Feb '13) Sep '14 Concerned Person 6
Calculating Millage? Aug '14 holmessph 1
The Takeover of Fayetteville is Almost Complete (Apr '13) Aug '14 Bill in Clayton C... 4

Peachtree City Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]