S.598 Same Sex Marriage

[Skywalker]

Sorry if this is a sore subject and I hope not. Reply from Colorado Senator on my objection to S.598. Vote people! I hope that our country can still be saved from the ever failing country in every faucet that I can conceive. "I FEEL THE FLAMES ALREADY" I've responded already and told them to:

Dear Michael:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S.598, the Respect for Marriage Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

Let me begin by saying I believe that discrimination against any Coloradan because of sexual orientation is unacceptable. Same-sex couples should be able to enter into legally recognized relationships affording them the same rights and benefits now enjoyed by heterosexual couples, including federal tax and social security benefits and the ability to designate who can care for them at the end of life.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced the Respect for Marriage Act on March 16, 2011. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104-199), which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The Respect for Marriage Act also establishes for the purpose of federal law in which marital status is a factor, that a couple shall be considered married as long as the marriage was entered into in a state where it is legal.

I am a proud cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act. I believe that married same-sex couples deserve the same federal marriage benefits that my wife and I enjoy. No married couples should be denied these marriage benefits, and they should not have to worry that their spouses will be denied Social Security surviving spouse benefits or equal family health benefits.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably on November 10, 2011 by a vote of 10-8. The legislation is now ready for consideration by the full Senate. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this important piece of legislation.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at Michael Bennet - United States Senator for Colorado : Home. Again, thank you for contacting me.


Sincerely,

Michael Bennet
United States Senator

[Gpmo]

Please not another one.

[nabusa]

I'm totally against same sex marriages. I am sure they will try and push for churches to allow it also. But the country will continue to change in the upcoming future and doesn't look like that will change.

[Warchild]

I've responded already and told them to:

You did? Seems the senators response was reasonable enough.

[GNBRETT]

I think there are more important issues we should be concerned about as a country vs. who gets married whom these days and what their benifits are as a result. I could just really care less one way or the other since it has absolutely no bearing on my life. im more concerned about health care, immigration, wars we fight in, taxes, jobs, etc....

not to mention most gay couples are well educated, pay their taxes, commit no crimes, respect the police, keep their yards clean, contibute to society, etc.... I just dont see why people care so much about what people do in their personal life when it has virtually ZERO impact on their own.

[k03gsxr750]

Anyone want to take a stab at intelligently answering why same sex couples shouldn't have the benefits of marriage without standing soley behind their own personal religious beliefs?

Ex: An intelligent reason couples with one person in the military, where one ends up being hurt/killed for his/her country. Should those couples really get different benefits than straight couple would get? Tax benefits, and other rights as well.

I think we can all agree the morality of any marriage is strictly up to the folks involved. To say "All marriages are an example of how it was originally thought be be" is disingenuous at best, more accurately grossly, grossly ignorant to statistics of marriage in today's age.

Before I get blasted your individual belief isn't invalid, wrong, or otherwise important. I fully believe in your right to choice a belief that works best for you whatever it may be. However, it just doesn't seem your belief should trump my ability to have my own conflicting belief - yours shouldn't negate mine.

[busa186]

Yeah, we should save the sacred act of marriage for people like Kim kardashian and Kris Humphrey.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[Warchild]

Before I get blasted your individual belief isn't invalid, wrong, or otherwise important. I fully believe in your right to choice a belief that works best for you whatever it may be. However, it just doesn't seem your belief should trump my ability to have my own conflicting belief - yours shouldn't negate mine.

With that kind of reasonable stance, how do you expect this thread to go anywhere?

Note for the humor-impaired: the above was sarcasm.

balancedpolitics.org seems to have some decent material that covers both sides of the aisle, but most of the "No" arguments are faith-based, thus invalid to this discussion. About the only "No" argument I could find that wasn't heavily laced with religious overtones is the following curious entry:

4) It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless.

Seems easy enough to address that last question..... perhaps something like the following: marriage has to be between two non-related humans (which eliminates blow-up dolls, incest marriages and dogs), and limited to the two individuals only (eliminating polygamy).

[skydivr]

I'm not going to get drawn into this one. I don't believe in it and I will vote and campaign for those against it. Nuff said.

[lil charlie]

I think people should have the right to pick who they are married to. Why do I care if your gay or straight? I married a chick because I love girls.... I will not lobby for or against it. If I see same sex marriage on a ballet I will vote for it. If a woman has the right to choose to abort a child why can't she have the right to marry another chick? I just don’t care what you do.........

How is it okay for people like Kim kardashian to pocket 17 million from a sham marriage but not okay for two dudes to get married? I don’t know….maybe I don’t care so much because I’m not a religious person. Not that that’s a bad thing. I’m more of a to each their own kind of guy.

[BusaBret]

I have been marrried to the same woman for almost 23 years.

IMHO marriage is an antiquated concept.

From a social/political/legall standpoint it is a way to control, tax and profit from everyone that takes vows.

[GsxrBots]

I'm religious. My father is a Minister. I'm NOT against gay marriage. By being religious I was and am taught to treat others as I would like to be treated myself. If you believe in God, then you believe that Homosexuals too will go to Heaven, so why suffer more than anyone else here on Earth. Yes it is considered a "sin" but so is basically everything we do in this world. We believe "as long as you believe and are baptized, you shall be saved" (Mark 16:16)

Why not let people be married? I don't see how it "hurts" anyone.

And yes, I know peeps are gonna bring out bible verses stating that a man shall not lie with another man, etc, etc. It also states that a woman should basically be a mans slave. Does that happen anywhere but Islam?

[CoastToCoast]

In my opinion what you do and who you want to marry is up to you, everyone is entitled to their own happiness. I do agree with some above comments, this may lead to a spiral of wanting to marry anything, animals, family, etc... so it has to be regulated in some form, "non-related humans" is a perfect way to put it and I agree with that.

Best comment i've ever heard was from Robin Williams. He said, “You could talk about same-sex marriage, but people who have been married (say) 'It's the same sex all the time.'”

So why not give everyone the happiness they want, if they want to get married and argue with their signifaicant other then let them. But, I think that if all you have to say in a debate like this subject is, "No" and can't back it up with anything intelligent to say, then don't say anything at all

[BusaWhipped]

A non-religous argument. The Government, as well as evolution, has a stake in the propagation of the population for the strength of the nation and the continuance of the species. Same sex couples cannot birth a new generation, thus not propogating a new generation of Americans or continuance of humans as a species. The Government frequently uses monetary influence over the populus to steer it in the direction they feel is best for the Nation as a whole.

[GsxrBots]

A non-religous argument. The Government, as well as evolution, has a stake in the propagation of the population for the strength of the nation and the continuance of the species.

Then why is abortion legal?

[Warchild]

And yes, I know peeps are gonna bring out bible verses stating that a man shall not lie with another man, etc, etc.

That's not the part that bothers me so much (not following some rule in a book), rather, my beef is what the bible says to do about those gay individuals.....

It doesn't say to shun them, or cast them out, or anything relatively benign like that.... but to actually kill them!

Wait, it gets better.... kill them, and then blame the deceased for causing themselves to be killed.... some curious logic there....

Lev.20:13 --> "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

[BusaWhipped]

Then why is abortion legal?

I have no clue why it's leagal. I don't support it. A mother kills her child in the 1st 9 months, its just a choice. A mother kills her child after that and she's a monster. I don't see one as any less a crime as the other.

[Josh]

I'm against marriage. Straight, gay, whatever. Sue me. It's a business arrangement that I feel is unnecessary. This opinion applies only to my life. Everyone else do whatever makes you happy.

/divorced, but happily co-habitating again.

[Schexy1]

Seems easy enough to address that last question..... perhaps something like the following: marriage has to be between two non-related humans (which eliminates blow-up dolls, incest marriages and dogs), and limited to the two individuals only (eliminating polygamy).

Now you have to define related and how to prove/disprove it.

This could get expensive. I think I will invest in DNA testing Labs and black market not related certificates..

[Warchild]

A non-religous argument. The Government, as well as evolution, has a stake in the propagation of the population for the strength of the nation and the continuance of the species. Same sex couples cannot birth a new generation, thus not propogating a new generation of Americans or continuance of humans as a species. The Government frequently uses monetary influence over the populus to steer it in the direction they feel is best for the Nation as a whole.

A cursory look at the world's population growth suggests that this argument would only hold water if one believes the passing of S.598 will somehow "create" homosexuals out of existing heterosexuals. Pretty unlikely..... homosexuality isn't a choice to be made based upon prevailing legislation. You don't get to "choose" your sexual orientation - it is innate.