Le 26 juin 2015, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a jugé que le refus des licences de mariage violait les clauses de procédure légale régulière et de protection égale du XIVe amendement de la Constitution des États-Unis. Le jugement a rendu le mariage homosexuel légal dans tous les 50 États américains.
@97YJ5GH1 an1Y
chacun fait ce qu'il veut on peux pas juger la position de quelqu'un
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
En termes d’égalité des droits et de libertés individuelles, dans quelle mesure est-il important pour vous que tous les couples, quel que soit leur sexe, aient le droit de se marier ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Si le mariage homosexuel d’un ami ou d’un membre de votre famille n’impliquait pas directement votre vie, vous y opposeriez-vous, et pour quels motifs ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Pourquoi pensez-vous que certaines personnes sont profondément affectées par les droits matrimoniaux d’autres personnes qu’elles ne connaissent pas personnellement ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
La légalité d’un mariage change-t-elle la valeur de l’amour et de l’engagement entre deux personnes ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Que signifie pour vous l’égalité du mariage et pourquoi pensez-vous qu’elle est devenue une question si cruciale dans la société ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Quel est l’impact de la validation juridique de toute relation amoureuse sur le tissu social de nos communautés ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Le gouvernement devrait-il avoir son mot à dire sur qui peut épouser qui, ou est-ce une liberté personnelle ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
La reconnaissance de l’amour entre deux adultes peut-elle affecter votre vie personnelle ? si c’est le cas, comment?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Imaginez que vous trouvez votre partenaire idéal mais que les règles de la société vous empêchent de vous marier ; quelles émotions cela évoque-t-il ?
@ISIDEWITH5 mois5MO
Que ressentiriez-vous si la loi ne vous permettait pas d’épouser la personne que vous aimez ?
@2J3ZBRJ3 ans3Y
No form of government should have any involvement in marriage.
@2J3YKT43 ans3Y
The marriage laws should be "equal" to traditional marriages and divorce decrements which include court decisions such as alimony, fornication, etc.
@2J3WQZQ3 ans3Y
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.
@2J3W9CL3 ans3Y
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.
@2J3PGFK3 ans3Y
Who the hell cares. Why don't we talk about the economy instead???
@2J38PTZ3 ans3Y
Yes, but marriages are hetero-normative and perpetuate sexism and homophobia.
@2J37K58Républicain3 ans3Y
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.
@2J2NLJRRépublicain3 ans3Y
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.
@2J2NDXF3 ans3Y
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.
@2J2BZ5N3 ans3Y
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.
@2J26NMK3 ans3Y
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.
@2J26JM63 ans3Y
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
@2HZFBC43 ans3Y
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.
@2HZCG2K3 ans3Y
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.
@2HZC2CW3 ans3Y
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.
@2HZ3PTV3 ans3Y
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.
@2HYY4C63 ans3Y
Marriage should be abolished - replaced with limited term co-habitation contracts
@2HYX3LP3 ans3Y
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.
@2HYSG5P3 ans3Y
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.
@2HYKBJH3 ans3Y
Yes, it's not my right to say if someone could marry someone else that they love, regardless of sexual orientation.
@2HYC6C83 ans3Y
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.
@NB23F53 ans3Y
They may get married but only receive "marriage" benefits if they have children.
@N946VJ3 ans3Y
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.
@N828FM3 ans3Y
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.
@N4GVS73 ans3Y
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.
@N2P4J53 ans3Y
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.
@MSJG3Z3 ans3Y
Individual decision, does not need a master to grant permission.
@MB9WMR3 ans3Y
Call it a partnershjp, and give them rights - but DON'T call it marriage!
@MB7LK43 ans3Y
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.
@M9QS3W3 ans3Y
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.
@M9QBLM3 ans3Y
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
@M9LP8R3 ans3Y
I think that all marriages should be called marriages, but the churches could have sacremental marriages.
@M98THR3 ans3Y
yes, Government has no business in this matter
@M87S2T3 ans3Y
I don't need the state to sanction marriage. It's a religious institution.
@M84PP83 ans3Y
Government should not be involved with this.
@M65JNB3 ans3Y
Why is the government allowed to define relationships?
@M5ZSRY3 ans3Y
Let the individuals, families, and churches to decide. Not the Federal government.
@M58RHB3 ans3Y
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.
@M2PSK83 ans3Y
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.
L’activité historique des utilisateurs interagissant avec ce question .
Chargement des données...
Chargement du graphique...
Chargement des thèmes politiques des utilisateurs qui ont participé à cette discussion
Chargement des données...