Should gay marriage be legalized?

I have an arguement essay due in English 121, on Gay Marriages, and I need to do a poll... I'm not getting the amount of responses I need to be able to include the answers in my essay through Facebook. Therefore, if you wouldn't mind answering a few questions with yes or no answers. If you want to leave more feedback you can send an email to! Here are the questions!! I need at least fifty responses as soon as possible! Thank you!

Question 1) Do you feel same sex marriage should be legalized?

Question 2) Do you feel that states should at least recognize out-of-state same sex marriages?

Question 3) Do you think same sex marriage is unconstitutional?

Question 4) Do you think that by legalizing same sex marriage it will lower the defenition of 'marriage'?

Please only yes or no answers! Thank you!!

11 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Best Answer

    1) Yes. Denying homosexual couples rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples is (in my opinion) a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and therefore a violation of the state constitutions of all 50 states.

    2) Yes. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, the states are directed to respect the judgments and laws of their sister states. The doctrine of comity also requires this result. Regrettably, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) grants the several states the ability to "ignore" these and choose whether to recognize a valid marriage from another state.

    3) No. There is nothing in the US Constitution which could be read to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, and for the same reason that the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia.

    4) No. That's a ridiculous position based on fear-mongering and a demonstrated inability to employ rational thought.

    Source(s): Attorney, licensed since 2006.
  • 3 years ago

    Part of the definition of marriage is "a consensual and contractual courting identified by way of regulation." That assumes that each events can legally make a agreement. Now, no less than, kids can not. Chairs can not. Animals can not. The regulation on this nation does now not admire the potential of any baby, chair or animal to make a agreement. Neither is there any solution to receive consent from an animal or a chair, given that consent includes the belief that they have an understanding of what they're doing as good because the act in their consenting. Please tell us how that would be performed. It would without difficulty be argued that the truth that kids have and nonetheless are routinely compelled into marriage in a few nations entirely invalidates any connection among gay marriage and baby marriage, if there have been any logical connection within the first location (there is not.) Child marriage includes a heterosexual courting, and heterosexuals are those who validate it. They do not do it by way of attractive to gay marriage. So what is the connection, precisely?

  • 8 years ago

    no, its called a marriage ,not a three ring circus.

  • 8 years ago

    Is there any way we will ever be able to get this Turd Newell to shut up about his twisted sex life?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    1 - No

    #2 - No

    #3 - Yes

    #4 - Yes

  • 8 years ago

    Happy marriages are not only totally legal everywhere in the world but are encouraged and hoped for.

    There is no such thing as "same sex marriage". "Marriage" is a union, civil and/or religious, between one man and one woman. You can't legalize something that doesn't exist.

    States should recognize out-of-state unions when they recognize out-of-state Concealed Carry Permits.

    "Unconstitutional" in which state? The federal government has no authority to interfere in marriage since it is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States.

    Lagalizing something that cannot exist doesn't change the meaning of words.

    1 no 2 no 3 no 4 no

  • 8 years ago

    1. Yes. In sweden it´s legalized, but a priest can refuse to perform the ceremony.

    2. Yes.

    3. Don´t know. It should be love and mutual consent that should be "the law"

    4 No.

    Sry couldn´t follow your instructions hehe

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago





  • 8 years ago

    1. Yes, but I'd actually prefer if the government stopped licensing marriage entirely. Whenever the government licenses an activity, whether it be marriage, driving or a business, it's explicitly trying to control and limit the number of people who can do it. Why should the government be limiting and controlling private arrangements between consenting adults? I have no problem with some sort of filing process to notify the state or county that two or more people have entered into a marriage contract, but like all contracts, it's something that can be handled privately, with an attorney, and a minister or officiant if the people involved choose.

    2. Yes - it's the basic principle of legal reciprocity.

    3. No, I think bans on it are unconstitutional (Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment and arguably substantive due process, as well).

    4. Not at all. That's an emotional argument to fear monger on the issue. Tradition and religion are great, but what make them great is that they're freely chosen. They stop being great when they're forced. Bans on gay and even polygamous marriage are religious and traditional definitions that have no bearing what the government should be doing.

    Source(s): Sorry, I like to explain stuff, but I started with the answer you need.
  • Bill
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Where is your wedding going to be,

    In a rest room.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.