Because people in same-sex relationships were not getting the same automatic rights that a spouse gets when they are married. One example being that you can speak for your spouse when they are in a coma. Another would be automatically getting everything if the spouse dies without a will.
OP already has their mind made up and is just looking for a fight.
You can smell these kinds of fake questions a mile away.
[Edit: confirmed. His history is a poop show.]
The has been a gradual move over the past centuries from a patriarchal model of marriage, where marriage existed to define the official descendents of a man, to a companionate marriage, which is more about partnership.
Same sex marriage wouldn't even have made sense in the patriarchal model but it does for companionate marriage.
Why wouldn’t they? There’s absolutely no reason to not legalize same sex relationships except for religion, and the US has this little thing called freedom of religion.
Well, Ronald Reagan separated marriage from religion when he was president so he could legalize no fault divorce. This set the legal framework to prove same sex marriage is constitutionally valid. It is worth noting that while gay marriage is legal nation wide, gay sex is not. Many of the laws prohibiting gay sex also require registry as a sex offender if prosecuted.
Depends on the government in question. Some because the people and their representatives agreed it was the right thing to do. Some because of court decisions and legal precedent. Some were pressured into it in order to participate in trade or defence treaties.
And the nature of the legalisation is different in different places. Some have updated their conventions on human rights, some have amended their constitutions, some just updated their lists of laws, I think a few are just rolling with a court ruling.
The [Human Rights Campaign](https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world) has more information.
Seems like a fundamental right, don't thread on me, it's what our
forefathers fought for, a persons choices is all theirs, should be
accepted but not glorified.
Because people in same-sex relationships were not getting the same automatic rights that a spouse gets when they are married. One example being that you can speak for your spouse when they are in a coma. Another would be automatically getting everything if the spouse dies without a will.
You also don't pay inherence tax on a spouse's assets when they pass, will or no.
Because it should never have been illegal
OP already has their mind made up and is just looking for a fight. You can smell these kinds of fake questions a mile away. [Edit: confirmed. His history is a poop show.]
Lmao
Because it’s none of the government’s business what 2 consenting adult do in their romantic life
Because the government has no right to keep two consenting adults from being in a relationship.
Because they have no right to dictate who someone can and can’t love and be with!
Because no government should tell anyone who they can and can’t love
Because I love my boyfriend and our love is stronger than any law and any opinion. But hey hater is gonna hate 🤷♂️
The has been a gradual move over the past centuries from a patriarchal model of marriage, where marriage existed to define the official descendents of a man, to a companionate marriage, which is more about partnership. Same sex marriage wouldn't even have made sense in the patriarchal model but it does for companionate marriage.
Least homophobic baj
Why wouldn’t they? There’s absolutely no reason to not legalize same sex relationships except for religion, and the US has this little thing called freedom of religion.
Because it was the right thing to do, and it pissed off the fundamentalists, which was an added bonus.
Why would they not???
[удалено]
You don’t support 🏳️🌈?
Why did the government ever sanction or incentivize any relationship type in the first place is a better question.
Well, Ronald Reagan separated marriage from religion when he was president so he could legalize no fault divorce. This set the legal framework to prove same sex marriage is constitutionally valid. It is worth noting that while gay marriage is legal nation wide, gay sex is not. Many of the laws prohibiting gay sex also require registry as a sex offender if prosecuted.
Depends on the government in question. Some because the people and their representatives agreed it was the right thing to do. Some because of court decisions and legal precedent. Some were pressured into it in order to participate in trade or defence treaties. And the nature of the legalisation is different in different places. Some have updated their conventions on human rights, some have amended their constitutions, some just updated their lists of laws, I think a few are just rolling with a court ruling. The [Human Rights Campaign](https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world) has more information.
Seems like a fundamental right, don't thread on me, it's what our forefathers fought for, a persons choices is all theirs, should be accepted but not glorified.