We are a republic, that's for sure. But, only insofar as our Chief Executive goes. In all other matters, especially local ones, we are a democracy.
Yep, the way we elect our president is a republican form of government. In every other way, we're a democracy.
That is a stereotype.
In the eyes of the gay community, labeling their union as a "civil union" versus a "marriage" states "equal, but different or separate." They're asking for equal.
Equal but different would be correct, though. Legally equal, but different because it's a different situation.
Legally, a homosexual couple could go to a lawyer and plunk down plenty of money to get most of the same legal rights as a married couple. However, they argue that they shouldn't have to do that. They should be allowed to go to a court house, apply for a marriage license, have their ceremony, and get those legal rights just the same as a majority of the population is able to do.
Maybe they shouldn't. We are talking a whopping 1-3% of the population here. Perhaps we should redefine "husband" and "wife" to simply be "spouse", or "life-partner" for the other 97-99%.
I suspect you are, you just disagree.
Why would you propose that? Homosexual couples who consider themselves to be "married" (albeit not legally so) often refer to their partner as their "husband" or "wife." The terminology is an integral part of the American lexicon.
But why should they, as American citizens, be treated differently than any other American citizen? I'm confused.
I tend to need things spelled out for me sometimes. How is it different?
I agree, it's an integral part of America. I believe that a definition of a wife is the female of a two-sex married couple, and husband is the male counterpart. For there to be two husbands, or two wives, would redefine the word, as well as the word married. Or, if there is a husband and wife in a single sex couple, that would equally redefine the words.
A different circumstance generally is handled in different ways. A blind American citizen is not granted a driver's license. A totally bald person is not given a hair cut. A male is not, by definition, a "wife". To call an apple an orange would simply not make good sense of the word. Thus, we either need to change the word, or redefine the word for the 97-99% of people to whom changing does not apply.
Read above.
Just a note for you ....Our system of goverment IS set up with the bible in mind. Not only do we have the law, which is fashioned out of the OT law, but we have judges that handle disputes. Read the OT and you will see Moses set up a system of judges ( could that be why there is a picture of Moses in the Supreme court receiving the law???). Thankfully our founding fathers had the wisdon they did and to add seperation of powers to our goverment. If you don't like religion in politics you could move to ......uumm.....Communist China.. You should feel right at home.
Sorry i meant to answer this yesterday
No even locally, we're still a Republic.
We (citizens) dont vote on national laws/regulations, our Representitives (Senators/Congressmen) do that.
We dont vote on state laws/regulations, our State representitives do that
We dont vote on local laws/regulations, our County representitives do that
Fair enough, I'll concede I had a different understanding. In that the president is not elected by the voters (the citizens), but by people whose job it is is to circumvent the voters should they be determined to be wrong by the electors.
to your better understanding than mine 
Oh ok, so when you stated this :
and then later on said this:
You werent trying to imply they were Christians and they meant which flavor of Christianity you wanted to follow
Especially because you left Christianity out of your "what it had nothing to do with"
Right :shrug:
Nice try.
Personally, I'm not against it on a religious level. Whatever the courts decide means nothing to the religious ceremony. I'm personally against it on a few different levels, one being the definitions of the words "husband", "wife", and "marriage". Until very recently, the definitions of these words have been naturally (pun intended) heterosexual in nature, with "wife" necessitating being female in gender, "husband" male, etc. Homosexuals represent about 2% of the population, and changing the definitions of the words for no good reason to 98% of the population is absurd.
FoxNews said:
They already had that. That wasn't good enough. The lawsuit was whether to call an apple an orange. They insist their orange is an apple, and they want everyone else to look at at the orange, and call it an apple. They want the law to force others to see their union as a marriage. A marriage is a husband and wife. A husband is male, a wife is female. They already had all the legal rights via their union, but that was a different name. This isn't about being treated equally, this is about being accepted as an equal, when the two things are not equal, but very similar.
I haven't read the lawsuit personally, but that's what that article was saying.
Imagine the estrogen fueled fun fest when its Aunt Flo's time
