Poll: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

President Barack Obama said that he supported gay marriage this week, while Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.


Gay marriage came to the forefront of the 2012 presidential campaign this week.

President Barack Obama said on ABC's Good Morning America that he personally supported gay marriage.

"You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently," Obama said in the interview with ABC.

Obama's support for gay marriage came one day after North Carolina passed an amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Huffington Post Reported.

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has said that he does not support gay marriage or civil unions. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not," Romney said to Denver Fox KDVR-TV. Romney has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Politico reported.

In Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, said he supported equal marriage rights for homosexuals, the Chicago Tribune reported. Last year Illinois legalized civil unions. The law also recognized .

Bob Blinick May 24, 2012 at 06:45 PM
I am not fooling myself, but I think you're worrying too much about what our government might do. Yes, there is a bit of an overlap between church and state with regard to the state's authorizing clergy to act as an agent of the state with regard to presiding over the marriage ceremony ("by the power vested in me by the State of...."). That is an accommodation which I don't believe violates the First Amendment because a priest has no greater power to marry a couple than does a justice of the peace. No priests have been forced to marry anyone against their (the priest's) will, just as many clergy will refuse to marry those outside of their religion. You may be afraid of the clergy's being forced to act in violation of their religious obligations, but I doubt any court would find that way. You do, however, raise an interesting issue, due to the intertwining of the clergy and their licensing to wed.
Daniel Krudop May 24, 2012 at 06:56 PM
"You may be afraid of the clergy's being forced to act in violation of their religious obligations, but I doubt any court would find that way." How many Catholic institutions have joined in lawsuits against the Federal Government in regard to healthcare requirements? Oh, you don't have to worry about the new healthcare laws. The government would never force you to act in violation of your religious beliefs! Right.
Bob Blinick May 24, 2012 at 07:05 PM
You're switching topics, at least with regard to rights of religion versus rights of marriage. No member of the clergy will be required to marry a couple where performing that ceremony would violate that clergy's freedom to exercise religion. There are other avenues available for an LGBT couple to travel to be married, and nobody has a right to be married, for example, in a Catholic church. However, and it does raise an interesting point, what about an employee at, say, Notre Dame, which is self-insuring, and where there is no separate entity to insure procedures which Notre Dame finds religiously offensive. That case will likely go to the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts, or the thoughts of those who have read this stream, on that issue?
Sandra Hanan May 24, 2012 at 08:25 PM
I am not for and strongly disagree with what marriage has "become" in the eyes of so many people. It is steeped too much in religion, politics, "what everyone thinks is the right thing to do", blahblahblah. What ever happened to it being a sacred union between two people who share a special love and who want to demonstrate that love to themselves and their loved ones by having a special ceremony to honor it? Just like with so many issues that should be "human" issues and that should be made by those involved, the government, religion, and society have just gotten way too much involved. (Not that a marriage is something simple, as I'm absolutely not trying to say that. That's anything but true! Leave all the hooplah out of it-let it be a decision that is made by two individuals who love one another and who want to officiate that love, regardless of sex, race, religion, or whatever.
Bob Blinick May 24, 2012 at 09:04 PM
But marriage is steeped in both legal issues and intensely personal ones. I cannot name them, but married people have both rights and obligations with regard to medical decisions, visitation and access, social security/pension, property rights, and perhaps a thousand more. Therefore, it does affect the legal standing of each as to whether the couple is married. Second, marriage is a declaration of an intense personal commitment. Some do not, of course, view it that way (cf. Las Vegas), but there are many couples who have made the solemn decision to declare their love and commitment to each other, and wish for the rest of society to recognize that their pledge is entitled to the same respect as a heterosexual marriage.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »