"As a believer in individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives, I simply cannot find a legitimate justification for federal laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, which 'define' marriage," he said.
"That definition should be left to religions and individuals, not government. Government’s role when it comes to marriage is one of granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage contract. As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights, it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple."
Even if the leader of the Labor Party is opposed to gay marriage, the members of the party voted to support it.
An Associated Press even reports that the support for gay marriage was so strong at the conference that the motion was carried by strength of voices only.
Unfortunately, later, by a vote of 208-184, they decided to make a vote of conscience. It means that gay marriage won't pass because the number of necessary votes will not be sufficient as Labors operate a minority government with only three independents and one green.
However, according to Deputy Chief Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, Andrew Barr, a bill will be presented next year before the federal Parliament.
During a visit in Waverly, Iowa, Michele Bachmann answered questions of a pro-gay student, 16, wondering about the legalization of gay marriage.
Bachmann answered: "Well, number one: all of us as Americans have the same rights, we have the same civil rights. That’s what government’s role is: to protect our civil rights. There shouldn’t be any special rights or any special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences. We all have the same civil rights."
(No, we don't have all the same civil rights. There are two kind of marriages: the religious one and the civil one. If "we all have the same civil rights" why two women can't have a civil wedding?
And let's note the term here "people's preferences": we all have the same rights but the law cannot take account of people's preferences. So why women who prefer women have no rights but women who prefer men have rights?)
Schmidt continued: "Then why can’t same-sex couples get married?
Bachmann: They can get married, but they abide by the same laws as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman, or if they can marry a woman if the’re a man.
Schmidt: Why can’t a man marry a man?
Bachmann: Because that’s not the law of the land.
Schmidt: So heterosexual couples have a privilege?
Bachmann: No, they have the same opportunity under the law. There is no right to same-sex marriage."
Bachmann explained that there is "no special rights for people based upon your sex practices. There’s no special rights based on what you do with your sex life. You are an American citizen first and foremost, and that’s it."
Ok so let's remember there is no discrimination, we all have the same civil rights but gays and lesbians can't have a civil wedding wich is a civil right.
The law is absolutely not based on people's preferences except for people who prefered opposite-sex. Oups! I forget it is not based on sex practices too lol.
So yes, we absolutely didn't learn anything, so why did I wrote about it? Just to applaud this student, she was amazing!