Чи підтримуєте ви легалізацію одностатевих шлюбів?

Якби одностатевий шлюб друга чи члена сім’ї не мав прямого впливу на ваше життя, чи були б ви проти цього і на якій підставі?

Чому, на вашу думку, на деяких людей глибоко впливають шлюбні права інших, яких вони особисто не знають?

Чи змінює законність шлюбу цінність любові та відданості між двома людьми?

Що для вас означає рівність у шлюбі і чому, на вашу думку, це стало таким ключовим питанням у суспільстві?

Як юридичне підтвердження будь-яких стосунків любові впливає на соціальну структуру наших спільнот?

Чи має уряд вирішувати, хто з ким одружується, чи це особиста свобода?

Чи може визнання кохання будь-яких двох дорослих вплинути на ваше особисте життя; якщо так, то як?

Уявіть, що ви знайшли свого ідеального партнера, але правила суспільства заважають вам одружитися; які емоції це викликає?

Що б ви відчували, якби вам не дозволили одружитися з людиною, яку ви кохаєте, на основі закону?

No form of government should have any involvement in marriage.

The marriage laws should be "equal" to traditional marriages and divorce decrements which include court decisions such as alimony, fornication, etc.

Explain to me, other than someone making a buck, why you need a religious ceremony and a law to validate how you feel about someone.

As long as it's named something else! We call a man a man and a woman a woman so that we know the difference, since marriage is traditionally defined as a man and woman so same sex unions should be defined by a word that describes that! Give them the same rights, benefits, and consequences.

Who the hell cares. Why don't we talk about the economy instead???

Yes, but marriages are hetero-normative and perpetuate sexism and homophobia.

No, allow civil unions and increase what civil unions mean and rights within civil unions. Marriage by definition is between man and women because there is a natural way to create offspring, however difficult or easy that may be for each individual marriage. Churches should always remain separate from government, which means they are to be allowed to refuse marriages per their choice. They currently do that with traditional man and women marriages when they feel there is not enough preparation among other reasons. So that should be continued, a church is a following of people not just a building to be admired.

For me marriage has to do with my faith. I think the Government should stay out of marriage and provide family benefits in place of marriage benefits. For someone to be denied access to their loved ones because they are not married is wrong.

Marriage should be a solely religious ceremony and non-religious people should not be married, but have a civil union and a church should have the right to marry, or deny marriage, to whom they choose.

The government has absolutely no business telling anyone who they should or should not marry.
That is legislating someones religious views, and is absolutely contrary to the separation of church and state, as well as an infringement on individual rights.

Yes- but do not force a church to offer license. Patrons are free to choose churches to hold ceremony as they please. Also, condemn the use of artificial insemination for same sex couples. Children have an inherent right to have a father and mother care for them.

Yes, it's wrong, and no it's not. It's not right for people to bash it constantly when they say it's a sin in the bible. There are thousands of sins but they continue to only bash this particular one. Then LGBT we get it equal rights, but you can't shove this down other people's throats, the hardcore Christians aren't going to accept unless you show the many standpoints not just have pride days and celebrations. Both sides are wrong, but both are right, so I'm a both

Each state should be able to make their own choice. For example, it is fine if Alabama bans it, while New York makes it legal.

I do not support it because I am a Christian, but for the same reason I do not and will not keep anyone from having a same sex marriage. It would be wrong for me to hate someone for it. I do not agree with it, however.

From a governmental stand point the term marriage should be changed to civil union for all couples. The term marriage is a religious invention anyway.

Yes, but I still feel a bit uneasy about this as small children may be exposed to public displays affection within the same sex, which I do not feel is natural, but understand, this is something you are born with. However, as the years pass, this will be considered 'normal' and this issue will be a thing of the past.

Marriage should be abolished - replaced with limited term co-habitation contracts

Yes but call it something else to alleviate the fears of the religious nuts. I couldn't care less what others do in regard to their marriages and it does not threaten mine.

Marriage was created to safeguard the human race, i.e. protect women and children. In the U.S. and other parts of the world it is used to control permissions and freedoms, i.e. taxes, property, and medical decisions. Therefore, marriage should not be religious or based on sex. It is a legal status therefore it should be based upon two people who decide they want to enter a legal relationship.

Yes, it's not my right to say if someone could marry someone else that they love, regardless of sexual orientation.

Don't care, just don't be all up in my face about it and broadcast it everywhere. Just do what you want and go about your business.

They may get married but only receive "marriage" benefits if they have children.

I couldn't care who marries whom, or what. All I ask is that if a gay couple get married, that they call it gay married to substantiate the difference. That way, if I say I am married, the person asking knows I am married to a woman. If I said I was gay married, they would know my partner was a male. That is all I would ask for. Fair enough.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Separation of Church and State is well documented. The State should not be allowed to name one of its numerous licenses after a Christian sacrament. The Church is allowed to dictate who it will and will not provide a marriage ceremony. This should solve the whole thing. It's semantics.

It shouldn't be called "marriage" because marriage from the very beginning was between a man and a woman. They should call it something else and they should be allowed to be together.

For a workers party. For a workers government. For the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender marriage - and divorce! For full democratic rights for GBLT people. Defend the 1st Amendment Jeffersonian-Madisonian separation of religion & state, including 1st & 14th Amendment equality before the law for GBLT people. For the 2nd Amendment right of armed self-defense by GBLT people against bigoted terrorism. For the arming of GBLT people in self-defense against bigoted terrorism.

Individual decision, does not need a master to grant permission.

Call it a partnershjp, and give them rights - but DON'T call it marriage!

It's not the role of government to define the term "marriage" for the people and their religions. There is no valid reason for the state to be involved in, or to regulate, adult consensual relationships that don't involve procreation. But it should have nothing to do with "banning" or refusing to allow anyone to define their relationship and the term they choose for it, however they, and their religion, defines it.

Clergy should not act as agents of the state in witnessing marriages. All unions gay and straight should be civil. If the couple wishes to have a religious ceremony subsequently then they can do so according to the rules of their house of worship.

Marriage should be seperated from the ritual, churches should not be required to marry everyone but, I believe it is financially a better decision to be inclusive of multiple no traditional types of relationships for marriages

I think that all marriages should be called marriages, but the churches could have sacremental marriages.

yes, Government has no business in this matter

I don't need the state to sanction marriage. It's a religious institution.

Government should not be involved with this.

Why is the government allowed to define relationships?

Let the individuals, families, and churches to decide. Not the Federal government.

I don't believe marriage as long as divorce is legal. The decision to remain committed to another is a second by second decision and the glamorization of marriage has corrupted youth to unrealistic expectations of married life. religion, and the law have failed to prove marriage as necessary or a natural phenomena. no legal perks should be given to those who decided to make this oath.

Separate the religious and civil aspects of marriage. The government recognizes civil unions for all couples, gay or straight, then let the churches decide which ones they will recognize.

Everyone gets a civil union, marriage can be done as a religious ceremony and each religion can decide who it will grant the rite to.