E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Courtesy of Immigration Equality
Tim Smulian, a 65-year-old British and South African citizen, and Edwin Blesch, a 71-year-old American, met in 1999 and have been together ever since – though that has entailed moving countries every six months at an enormous financial cost since they can't legally marry in the US. Despite years of stress, both said it has all been worth it and feel being part of the lawsuit is an "obligation to continue the struggle."
Same-sex couples, in which one partner is a foreigner, have filed a lawsuit challenging a federal law that prevents them from getting a green card for their spouses, just ahead of the start of a related court battle that some predict could bring the issue of gay marriage to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, filed Monday on behalf of five binational gay couples, targets Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which blocks federal benefits for same-sex couples -- including the right of an American to sponsor their foreign spouse for a green card. The lawsuit claims that DOMA violates their constitutional right to equal protection.
“Our couples can’t just wait any longer … we’ve spent the past year working with the Obama administration to encourage them to place green card applications for gay and lesbian couples on hold until DOMA is struck down by the courts or repealed by Congress, and they have declined to do that,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, which filed the lawsuit along with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. “As a result, we really have no choice but to sue.”
The couples in the lawsuit have been together more than a decade – in some cases more than two – and have struggled to cope with the law while maintaining their relationships.
“They’re at the end of their viable options to stay here as a family,” Tiven said Tuesday. “They’re out of visas … they’re out of work opportunities that would enable them to continue to stay.”
DOMA, enacted by Congress in 1996, blocks federal recognition of same-sex marriage, thereby denying various benefits given to heterosexual couples, such as the right to immigrate. Thirty-nine states have defense of marriage acts, while six states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. There are an estimated 36,000 binational gay couples in the U.S.
One of the couples in the lawsuit is American Edwin Blesch, 71, and his husband Tim Smulian, a 65-year-old British-South African. The couple married in South Africa in August 2007, where gay marriage is legal. Their union is also recognized in New York state, which approved same-sex marriage last year.
For some gay couples, fight goes on to marry — and stay in the US
“The last years have been probably the most exhilarating in our lives in that we’re together and we both now have the … soulmate that we’ve been searching for all of our lives,” he said.
But the legal restrictions have made life more stressful for the couple, who live in Orient, NY. Smulian’s visa has expired, and though federal authorities have given him an additional year to stay in the country in what is known as “deferred action,” that time will be up Feb. 7, 2013.
“We’re now in our retirement years … there’s not a whole lot of time for us to dawdle around waiting for things like this to be settled,” added Blesch, who says he has HIV/AIDS and needs to stay in the country for his medical care.
The lawsuit notes that if the couples were heterosexual, the federal government would recognize the foreign spouse as an immediate relative of their American partner, who could apply for an immigrant visa for them.
“Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples, however, these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated bi-national couples,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. “This is an action to remedy that hateful, harmful, and unlawful discrimination.”
Immigration Equality and other advocates of couples in this situation have urged federal authorities to put the green card applications on hold, rather than deny them outright, while the legality of gay marriage is addressed through legislation or by the courts. They note that immigration judges have opted to put some deportation proceedings on hold while the law is in flux.
“There’s no requirement in any law that says a (green card) denial must come immediately,” said Lavi Soloway, a lawyer representing same-sex couples, whose law practice – Masliah & Soloway – created Stop The Deportations: The DOMA project.
“Press the pause button, don’t destroy people’s marriages,” he added. “Even for a short period so that we make sure we don’t make any premature denials and cause irreversible harm to couples and families.”
Soloway said two other cases were filed last year – one in Los Angeles and the other in Chicago – on the same issue as the Immigration Equality lawsuit, coming amid a number of legal challenges to DOMA.
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Boston will hear an appeal over DOMA’s denial of federal benefits to married gay couples – a case Soloway said experts expect to make it to the Supreme Court.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Why would the court strike down DOMA? They're too busy killing Obamacare!
Because unlike the Affordable Care Act, DOMA is clearly unconstitutional.
This Supreme Court is out to strike down the laws protecting our freedoms, not the laws interfering with them.
Did everyone know that the word "faggot" comes from the name of the small kindling wood that citizens used to light the fires when they burned homosexuals at the stake in the middle ages?
So the U.S. is more homophobic than South Africa was 5 years ago?
Go figure.
Deport ALL illegals now, no matter who they are. If these couples are in "love" let them both go start a new life wherever the illegal came from
They're not "illegals", Jerry. One of them is an American citizen, legally married to the other who is not a citizen. If they were of opposite sex, they'd have no trouble obtaining a green card for the spouse.
But since we have a system that the right claims is equal rights (but not really), they can't get the same documentation as a heterosexual couple.
Now, is that "all men created equal"?
That's what I was thinking if its legal in S.A. why don't they live there, problem solved.
Hmm, stc1993 - when did the United States cease to be a "light of freedom and democracy to the world"?
Seems we started a couple of wars recently based on that premise.
Gay couples should absolutely have the same rights with respect to immigration as heterosexual couples. However, both gay and heterosexual couples MUST COMPLY WITH OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS! Assuming they do this, and they do not expect rewards for immigration lawbreaking (like so many ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE EXPECTING), they should be treated the same and should be subject to the very same considerations in obtaining a Visa.
Jerry4500... too bad you're an American. Boy, would I love to send your sorry a$$ anywhere but here. Your ignorance is surpassed only by your bigotry.
Angelica, that's exactly what one couple in the article has been doing:
The problem is that DOMA is preventing them from the rights that a married couple should be entitled to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of illegal immigration either, but this article has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with someone being here illegally not because they're trying to sidestep a law, but because there is a discriminatory law in place.
So the President doesn't want to enforce DOMA because HE doesn't think it is constitutional. No Supreme Court ruling, no nothing. Just his opinion. However faced with a possible strike down of his Obamacare Act because the Supreme Court, who's job it is to determine these issues, and Obama has his shorts in a twist accusing everybody of judicial activism. Didn't a democratically elected Congress enact the DOMA law? What's the difference between the two on that limited point i.e. legal enactment vs constitutionality? In his mind i is only that he doesn't like DOMA.
You can't make this stuff up!! He is nuts!!
Let these people be married and live here like heterosexuals do. This is an egregious violation of civil rights. More "Separate but (semi) equal" bull@!$%#.
Gays marrying does NOT violate the Constitution like Obamacare does, it does not "destroy" heterosexual marriage, and it does ZERO damage to families, children, churches, or life in general. All it does is offend people who want to legislate morality. If Obama ever wanted my support, all he'd have to do is ram through a federal gay marriage act the way he did Obamacare. THAT one he'd win in the Supreme Court. And he'd be backed by one of his biggest detractors (ME!) for doing it. And I'm straight. This is for my deceased friends Frank and George, a gay couple who spent over 50 years together, and never could just get married. Because they aren't "human" by some bigotted @!$%#'s definition.
Apparently comprehension is not one of your skills: the President and Attorney General have said that they will no longer defend DOMA, but that as long as it is the law, they will enforce it (since they have no other choice).
Jerry-450071 I think you are wrong.
From Wikipedia:
It is sometimes claimed that the modern slang meaning developed from the standard meaning of "faggot" as "bundle of sticks for burning," presumably with reference to burning at the stake. It is true that supposed witches and heretics were burnt to death in some parts of Europe, and were often accused of deviant sexual behavior. However, any association of faggots with executions had long become a historical curiosity by the time the slang sense of the word arose in twentieth-century America. Moreover, burning was never prescribed as a punishment for homosexuality in either Britain or America. This explanation is therefore considered to be an urban legend.
Really? They are "legally" married? You do understand the under FEDERAL LAW gay marriage is illegal right REAL AMERICAN'S FIRST? Under DOMA the US Govt has reserved the right to define marriage. It has done so and by defining marriage between a man and a woman. Nevermind what STATES think. Under FEDERAL LAW it's not recognized. Immigration also falls under FEDERAL LAW and so it is 100% legal to deny this couple immigration status based on a marriage that the US Govt has determined is illegal. It's that simple. Don't like it change it. BUT it has to go before the supreme court before this couple can actually have an arguement.
To all the people calling everyone a bigot. Just STFU because Bill Clinton passed this law as well as Don't Ask Don't Tell. Does that make him a bigot? I'm neutral on the issue, I could give a rats azz but I get sick an tired of the weirdos calling everyone bigots all the damn time. Just because someone has a different view point doesn't make them a bigot. If it did YOU would be a bigot because of all the other alternative marriages you DON'T SUPPORT.
ErinNJ: then, if the Attorney General is willing to enforce DOMA, as long as it is the law, WHY isn't the Attorney General enforcing the immigration laws of the U.S.? It's so wonderful when we get to pick and choose what laws we want to follow and enforce.
If only we could deport the likes of Jerry to the Moon.
It's obvious what Obama wants to do. He's hoping it will all blow over until after the election. Then he can make a decision on everything since there is not a chance for re-election after that. The trouble is will he be an even worse president the second time around? I think so. He's already showed up what he was like with illegal immigration. His own relatives are illegal and he allows them to stay here. Just wait and see. We will soon have an anti-christ in our midst.
Bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla WHO GIVES A RATS A**!!! Why should we care if they grow pot, love eachother, hate mexicans or dont want health insurance JUST MAKE SURE IT DOESN"T INCREASE THE DEFICIT!!!
As usual, any time there is a foreign national described in an article regardless of its content, the teabaggers spout on and on about immigration...
Boy unhappy, do you ever live in that Fox Noise bubble! You realise don't you that the deportation rates of illegal immigrants is UP under Obama? He's deported more illegal immigrants in four years than GW Bush did in 8 years! And what about your vaunted Saint Ronnie who granted amnesty on illegals back in 1986? Amnesty today is a four-letter word amongst conservatives. Reagan also RAISED taxes 7 times in the 8 years he was president! The man that today's Republican party holds up as all that is virtuous to conservative couldn't even get elected because he'd be considered too liberal!
I personally do not give a crap what 2 legal adults do in their own bedroom, but I still think marriage is between a man and a woman.
If these 2 want to be together so bad... move to SA.
ROOSTER said:
Gay Marriage is NOT illegal under federal law. Please educate yourself, DOMA only states that the STATES do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. It does not in any way make it illegal.
So not only are you a BIGOT, you are Ignorant too. But those two go hand in hand. And yes just because you have an opinion does not mean that it is not BIGOTED
They're not men, they're FAGGOTS.
You are not a man! You are a bigot.
Whenever I hear someone call another person bigot in these discussion boards, I think about 3rd graders and the playground namecalling. "you're a bigot...no you're a bigot." Enough already...get over yourself. As far as calling these men names, back off and go take care of your own business. If they aren't bothering you, then mind your own. But enough with cramming "ACCEPT ME!" down others people's throats. I'm single and would love some of the benefits married couples get. You don't hear me yelling, "give me the same". Say it isn't fair? I want a "single endowment" program. That would allow me to claim singleness with no intent to marry. There should be a benefit for that. Right? I know its not the same...but where does this all end? See the point?
IMO, if any of you don't like the law then either wait till it is changed or stay overseas. I'm really tired of this crap, let's move on.
This will be a simple closed and shut Supreme Court case, with established precedent. DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, per Romer v Evans in 1996, the Supreme Court Case which struck down extreme right wing evangelical laws against gays and lesbians in Colorado.
The vote will either be 6-3 or 5-4, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion to end the ban on gay marriage nation wide. Only Injustices Roberts, Scalia, and of course Thomas will vote against in this case.
For those of you not knowing, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause expressly forbids the establishment of separate classes among citizens. Title Vi of the 1964 Civil Rights Act expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of gender in any civil matter.
Thus, a gay couple or a lesbian couple has the same rights and responsibilities to marry as any heterosexual couple.
Lastly, to the trolls, racists, and bigots making slurs on this blog about this topic? Remember karma. Christians in history have faced bigotry before, and can again. So can white males, women, or anyone else.
We can either be tolerant of each other's differences and grow as a country together, or collapse due to wallowing in stone age petty hatreds.
Gays and Guns....oh nothing stirs up the pot more than these 2 issues .... now if you could just turn yourselves away from the first completely unimportant distraction (gays & gay rights etc which affects maybe 3.2% of the population) and turn your attention to addressing the real problem keeping guns out of the hands of nutjobs....the world would be a better place for all of us.....including Gays.
Frankly True....DOMA does not make same sex marriage illegal true.....if something is not recognized then it is neither legal or illegal.....however if it is not recognized then you can not claim a spouse exemption for automatic residency if the marriage is not recognized.....if a US citizen had several wives in Pakistan and wanted to relocate to the US only one of his wives would be recognized because the US does not recognize plural marriages....call us bigots if you will but that is the law.
What really baffles me about this is why would anyone in their right mind with all the hatred, bigotry, racism, murder, deficits, lack of universal healthcare, poverty, homophobia, militaristic, arrogance, holier than thou attitudes etc etc etc that America has to offer, actually want to become a card carrying tax paying member of this club is beyond me....especially when they could live happily ever after in any one of a number of other countries.....go figure????????? Or is this the Gay Agenda at work????????
Doesn't it bother you Americans that you're telling people to go back to South Africa where they have more freedom?
Patriots, my foot.
I knew we couldnt go more than one day without a homosexual article, the plight of the homosexual, whoa is the homosexual, cant we just all embrace and love the homosexual. Cant we just ALL just say we agree with the homosexual, the trans sexual, the bi-sexual, the pedophile, the child molester, the sick a$$ twisted people who we wouldnt let in our house, bathroom or even share a wooden house with our dog.
The answer is no... a lot of us can not, will not, no matter how much they would like us too, sooooo keep on bitcIn, whining, crying, pleading, an even threatening. You Cant force anything down someones throat who doesnt accept it. Good luck with that plight, you'll lose in the end.
@Anna
Romer Vs Evans has nothing to do with gay marriage. There is too much misinformation being spread by gay activist. Romer Vs Evans decision basically says that boycotting housing based on sexual orientation isn't in the state's interest, neither is gay marriage for that matter. Any decision where the court seemingly rulled in favor of gays had to do with their individual rights being violated. The Supreme court says that states can make exceptions to the equal protection clause in certain cases, one of which is the rational basis test. The rational basis test falls under several levels of scrutiny.
Jim... if you don't like the content, you can always move to Iran. Until there is equality, we will continue to fight. Making noise, filing lawsuits, having protests... this is the only way to get anything changed in the United States.
I don't like pedophiles, either, so let's ban the Catholic Church! Child molesters and gays are two totally different things. I'm sorry you choose to remain ignorant. I've been married to the love of my life for nearly ten years. There has been no cheating, no abuse... only love and respect. How many straight couples can say that? We live every single day with discrimination, hate, ignorance, and the religious right telling us that we can't have equality. So I think you can deal with some news articles. No one forces you to read them.
What part of the Constitution gives you the RIGHT to sponsor someone for a green card? Name it.
we can ask what problem you have with it though, and criticize your hatred if you have no reason for hating gays so much.
why not?
@Jag
Equality on the basis of what? Citizenship? All citizens have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which presents a compelling state interest. Gays don't.
I'm almost convinced there is a work around to all the "noise" brought up by gays, mainly earphones.
Gay relationships don't normally define exclusivity the way heterosexual ones do.
As opposed to heterosexuals
I also think it's ignorant to label the entire Catholic church as pedophiles, only a certain constituency of them molest children.
I'm always weary of the frutopian statements made by impassioned gays. You're telling me there is nothing you dislike or have a strong opinion about? I guess you also like every television commercial, like sitting in traffic, and enjoy everything about your mate -- to their flatulence and belching?
As well as by ignorant homophobes like you.
In Romer, the law was found to be unconstitutional as it clearly discriminates against homosexuals as a group. Apparently you are not familiar with Lawrence v. Texas. In addition, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in that case, in which he stated:
Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 604-05 (2003)
Plus the fact that Loving v. Virginia has been cited in nearly all of the challenges to DOMA, Prop H8, and other anti-gay marriage laws by proponents of gay marriage, as the arguments raised in the Loving case against interracial marriage are virtually the same as those being argued today against gay marriage -- and the judges have so far agreed that Loving applies equally to gay marriage. The Supreme Court found in Loving that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment.
That disingenuous argument has been tried with no success; get over it. What gays are denied is the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, which heterosexuals now enjoy. Current laws are discriminatory based on gender: the gender of one of the persons seeking to marry.
Furthermore, in Perry v. Brown, Judge Walker pointed out -- and it has been upheld -- that there is no "compelling state interest" in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions; there is no "compelling state interest" in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California; and there is no "compelling state interest" in enacting and promoting the personal moral views of homophobes and bigots (like you) who would deny marriage to homosexuals.
Really? Since you seem to be the "expert" on gay relationships, please enlighten us: how do "gay relationships define exclusivity" and how is it different from how we heterosexuals define it?
Like so many of your ilk, you don't allow facts to get in the way of your misinformation and lies.
I'm really sick and tired of the religious hatred in this country. Religion has and will continue to hold mankind in the stone age. Whenever I see these religious bigots, yes I said BIGOTS, spew their hatred towards their fellow American citizen and their fellow man, it infuriates me and makes me hate their pathetic stone age religion even more. If these religitards even read and comprehended their so called "holy book", which should be renamed "Terrorism for Dummies". They love to spew their so called marriage is between a "man and a woman". Actually, it isn't. Marriage was always between two men. The woman was property and sold for a dowry. And the only good marriages I seen that the sociopathic sky daddy approved of was of incest, multitudes of wives and concubines, and many other man made rules of what was and was not good in the eyes of the deadbeat sky daddy. I would love to see those people that would interfere with the happiness of others lose their rights to worship, for those people do not deserve the rights they so freely abuse. Hate is not a right, it's a choice.
In Maryland, our dumb A-- Gov., gives Same Sex people living together the ability to get State Sponsored Health Insurance but denies the same right to Opposite Sex Couples. But then O'Malley is an O'Bama wannabe, and like O'Bama, will kiss as-es and sell his soul and the souls of his constituents for the vote.
I am a straight, married, conservative, God-loving, patriotic American. That said; let's cut through the crap. This is a non-issue meant to polarize both sides of political thought against each other and paralyze the democratic process. The Constitution guarantees EVERYONE the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If your lifestyle doesn't interfere with the rights of others or harm others, it is YOUR RIGHT. See, like I said, it's a non-issue. The Supreme Court will declare this law unconstitutional, as it should. To the religious zealots out there: you arrogant A**ES, who do you think you are that you believe that God gives you the right to judge others. Your book has been rewritten so many times as to be almost worthless, but it still says "judge not!". To you atheists out there: you are as bad as the zealots; deny God in your heart if you wish, it is your right. Don't force your views on me. If you can't handle "In God We Trust" then just don't look at it. To you leftists out there: quit using this and everything else as an excuse to spew your hatred; you are just sheep and part of the problem. To the people on the right (don't think I'm going to leave you out): you are tripping yourselves with your own intolerance and are part of the problem. There was a time when this nation was truly great; I think it will be again when we can finally use reason to cut through the B.S. and unite in a common cause as we once did. I hope we can all realize how thoroughly we are being used, and soon. Oh, almost forgot the homophobes: I truly doubt any homosexuals "want" you and, guess what..... it doesn't rub off and it's not contagious, you latent mouthbreathers, you.
Actually, Mike, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The DOI is not the basis of our laws and government, while the Constitution is.
How are atheists "forcing" their views on you? We are a secular nation -- separation of church and state, etc. No one can legally force you to be religious or to be irreligious.
First, don't bother with Unhappy. The other day he/she tried making a case that Section 8 of the Constitution which assigns powers to the legislative branch, somehow applied to the FBI. Don't ask.
Yes, DOMA is federal law, however federal law is trumped by the U.S. Constitution, which contains a little something called the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Which nothing trumps. Nothing.
Here we go again, for all you fans of strawman arguments...
The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.
The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.
The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.
The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.
The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.
The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.
The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle, or get gay married. Until than, get over yourselves.
Can we all just stay out of each other's private lives now???
No, they are both the same thing - perverts!
Tabasco,
Really? What's the causal link between pedophilia and homosexuality? How then do you explain the fact that the majority of pedophilia is adult male on female child? Does that mean heterosexuality and pedophilia is also the same?
http://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63584/child-predators/index.html
I have read your posts here and elsewhere Sarah. I have never replied directly to them, because they piss me off and make me want to insult you, and I don't directly insult other members. That is not proper decorum. If you can't say anthing nice... However, since you directly address me, I will tell you that your liberal, pro-queer, pro- everything that would make our founding fathers turn over in their graves, comments really disgust me. You support perverts, you support compelling people to purchase products (insurance) that they don't want, you see rights in the Constitution that don't exist. There is no constitutional right to health care. There is no constitutional right to anything at the expense of others. It is not the govenrment's, or the taxpayer's, job to take care of people. If you want it, work for it, and pay for it. There is no constitutional right to be queer.
You are a good-looking woman, if that is your picture in your avatar. However, good looks do not create sound morals or sound reasoning. Why does there have to be a causal link between pedophilia and homosexuality? Who said either of them causes the other? They are both simply disgusting, perverted forms of behavior. They are counter to the norms of our society that have existed since long before the founding of our nation. Society has no moral or constitutional reason to accept them. Behavior that is counter to social norms is illegal in all societies, including our own. That is why we have laws against public drunkenness, for example. We also have laws against public obscenity. Homosexual behavior is obscene, and I don't want to see it.
Since homosexual behavior is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, the power to regulate it is clearly not a power granted to the federal government or denied to the states. Therefore, according the the 10th Amendment, regulating it is a power that is reserved to the states. DOMA simply recognizes that, and places the legalization or illegalization of this behavior in the hands of the states where it belongs. The states have an obligation to pass laws in conformance with the wishes of their people. Most states have done this by banning homosexual marriage. Others have not. DOMA simply says that the states don't have to accept the laws of other states in this matter, but retain their sovereignty. DOMA is consitututionally right.
Just what we need...more homosexuals. Let's import some pedophiles too.
Tabasco Ed
What is the "norm" today is not tomorrow. The thought of woman voting was not the societal norm and it was predicted it would bring down society, back in the day. I would love for you to list what you consider "the norm"
I take it then when over 50% of the population are for marriage equality does that then become the norm? Or will your own personal feelings on the subject tell you and others with the same outlook what the norm should be?
Also for a point to the constitution it does no mention marriage nor who can get married or heterosexual behavior for that matter. Shame on you. Shame on you for trying to use the constitution to remove rights form people.
Tabasco,
Because that's what would make them the same thing, like you claim they are.
Um yeah, homosexuality isn't commerce. It's private behavior of American Citizens, which is protected from the government in the 4th and 9th Amendments. You can also check out Lawrence v. Texas.
Only if it's 1860. You see, the 10th Amendment was applicable back before the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Now the 10th Amendment is all but moot. A case pertaining to it hasn't been heard by SCOTUS since the '60's when they were trying to keep the south segregated by using it.
Yet it's the government's job to say who we can marry?
Interpretation: You threaten my bigotted beliefs, irrational paranoia, and defense mechanisms, that allow me feel superior to others.
P.S. Your comment about my looks is creepy.
Sarah-3043284 thumbs up to you.
Tabasco ED, well boy have you created a problem for yourself on one hand you cry "It is not the government's, or the taxpayer's, job to take care of people." then you point out the laws we should adhere to. Just a note for you Tabasco, laws are created by governments to protect (ie take care of) their citizens.
Just calm down this situation wont change you or your the US it will actually make it live up to the line, Justice and Liberty for All.
For All, Tabasco, not who you chose or think.
Actually, there is. It's called the 14th Amendment.
Since you obviously know nothing about either morals or reasoning, you are hardly the one to evaluate Sarah's.
In the first place, like so many ignorant homophobes, you confuse orientation with behavior. Second, cite some examples of behavior that is illegal because it is "counter to social norms". Homosexuality is not "normal" because the majority of us are not homosexual, but it is not illegal, and it never has been in this country.
WRONG. Using obscenities in public is not illegal, either. If you're referring to pornography and/or indecency, such laws are so ambiguous as to be laughable, as they are open to interpretation by the beholders.
So don't look. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to be here, or that they aren't entitled to the same rights are you and I.
Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, either, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a "basic civil right". And the Court has ruled in numerous cases regarding homosexuals -- and almost always in the homosexuals' favor regarding the protections due them under the Constitution.
DOMA is not about regulating homosexual behavior; it is about excluding homosexuals from being allowed to marry -- so it is all about hatred and bigotry.
WRONG AGAIN. The states have an obligation to pass laws that ensure all of their citizens are afforded their Constitutional rights.
Actually, over 50% of all Americans support marriage equality now:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx
There is nothing as blatantly self-contradictory as a modern "conservative". They claim the federal government is too intrusive, but then they support laws like DOMA that force the government to pick someone's spouse. Someone posted this backwards crap:
Notice the errors. First, states are not "obligated to pass laws in conformance with the wishes of their people". Just because a state's citizens wish to pass a law, that does NOT make the law constitutional. Second, just because a power is not "specifically" delegated to federal regulation, does NOT permanently enjoin the government from acting. The federal government is not permanently enjoined from regulating anything.
The right-wingers who insist on adhering to the tenth amendment forget that its strict interpretation was overruled by the 14th and 15th amendments because it was too restrictive of federal powers. another example: the 18th amendment banned all alcohol in the country. But the 21st amendment legalized it again.
marriage
@ErinNJ, You are entirely correct; life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness are from The Declaration of Independence. The 9th and 10th Amendments make it law, though. The DOI is a legal document and does have a bearing on the laws of this country. I apologize profusely for misspeaking. As for the atheists pushing their own "religion"; lobbying to have the word God removed from everything public because it offends you IS pushing your beliefs on others. The founding of an organization for that purpose IS pushing your views on others. If you were a true atheist (like my wife, for instance) you would be apathetic towards religion, not activist.
Otherwise, I agree with all of the other points you and Sarah have made.
@Jim, I don't understand how the 10th Amendment could be interpreted as you say it was, but I'll take your word for it. Just understand that your comment about right-wingers is not all inclusive.
I notice Tabasco stopped posting...Sarah and Erin are obviously way to smart for him. You go, Girls!
It is only a legal document insofar as it establishes the United States of America as a completely separate country from Great Britain; it certainly is not the basis of our laws and government -- that is the Constitution.
Then I guess the Constitution is "pushing beliefs on others," because according to the First Amendment, the word "God" does not belong on anything paid for with public funds.
Mike C.-
The only "belief" being pushed by atheists lobbying to make the government religion-neutral is the belief that people without religion deserve to be afforded just as much respect as monotheists by this country. Just because your wife apparently doesn't care about that doesn't make it unimportant.
artsylady, Frankly True, AllPeopleRights, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
werallscrewed, you're suspended for a week for violating #5 of the Code of Honor.
Interesting.
They may actually have a decent case.
I thought we fought this battle and settled it in the 60's. No discrimination based on gender. There's no reason for DOMA other than someone's religious beliefs. Everyone has a right to their beliefs but no beliefs should be legislated over someone else's.
Well, I believe in multiple wives since polygamy is as old as Father Time.
why would you want multiple wives, isn't it enough having to put up with one?
And I believe in incest since it's part of our "Southern Heritage."
Incest is still legal in some parts of the south, too.
They're in the U.S. Illegally and should be immediately removed from the U.S.. Their Spouse is free to join them. Being Married, dating or friends of a U.S. Citizen should not immediately Guarantee a "Green Card" or any other U.S. Tax Payer Supported benefit to an individual or individuals family that is in the U.S. Illegally!!!!!
Please read the original article. No one is speaking about amnesty for illegal entry. This couple have repeatedly used the existing visa process, and the current visa is valid until Feb. 2013. They are looking to the future; with age/health issues, bouncing from country to country may no longer be viable. They are trying to A) receive equal treatment under the law, and B) avoid an illegal alien issue in the future--should this not be resolved before the current visa expires, they could end up separated during a health crisis, when we need other people the most.
Thought we recognized the stupidity of "America--love it or leave it" during the VietNam protests. Why should those of us who love our country leave it to the small-minded who believe their limited understanding of morality should continue as the law of the land? 12 Step programs clearly demonstrate that the first step of Recovery is admitting there is a problem. If we, as a nation, persist in the notion of "Love it or Leav it," we can never move forward. Fortunately we have a history of those who loved this nation enough to work to change it for the better, otherwise we would still be practicing genocide against Native Americans, locking Japanese immigrants & American citizens in detention camps, refusing women the right to vote/own property/control their bodies (well, we're still working on part of that). If our ancestors had been willing to abandon this nation to its lowest common denominator & "Leave it" for someplace better, we would still be a nation of legal slave owners (slavery/human trafficking exist, but it's underground now)/child labor/slums & sweatshops & tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. All citizens have a right & responsibility to engage in the process...quite frankly, those who promote "Love it or Leave it" are rather un-American in their notion that those with contrary views should neither voice opinions, nor work for change.
This law is pretty backward, and does go against the law, just get rid of it and be done with it, it dosent do anything except make this country look even more crazy.
Maybe move OUT of the country if you do not like the way it is here.
Oh yes, rather than change what is wrong with our country, just tell people to move if they don't like it. Very mature.
I'm sure people were also telling MLK to move since he wanted to change the racial inequities of the US.
Good idea, then all that is left with is... no one. It's even written in the Constitution that we have the right to redress grievances against the government, important enough that it's the very first Amendment.
So shut up with the bumper sticker idocy.
I'm sorry but an attitude like that would see the U.S. as a country of white land owning males with black slaves and wives with no rights. That is not the country I want for my daughters and granddaughters. What nonsense!
MT20 ... why don't YOU move to Somalia? I'm sure the environment there is more to your liking.... more guns, no government... I'm sure you like the warlord life.
Nancy.
Mr. Obama is ALREADY against DOMA and will probably issue an Executive Order to strike it down since he wants to continue to use his "shadow government" and bypass Congressional procedures. He doesn't want ANYMORE "fights" to occur on the Congressional floor leading up to the Presidential election.
Nah, just keeping thinking of how America is going to look for YOUR ancestors IF Mr. Obama gets re-elected and not what a post comments on Newsvine.
ldo
Next time you write something here try NOT BEING DRUNK!
Hey, sounds good....some more of that Democrat~Progessive lemonade please.
BTW, you may want to check on Mr. Obama's Amnesty for 1,000,000 Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) who will be allowed by stay in the United States using a New DHS "procedure". Yep, "shadow government" at it's finest.
If your every post needs the phrase "shadow government" without facts. You lose the logic battle
The "shadow" ldo sees is from his tinfoil hat. (shhh)
Nancy, take your daughters and move to Mexico, and you will see what a utopia you live it. That is until the tsunami of illegal immigration destroys the economy and your daughter will be working at Taco Bell.
This is ODD, My Dad made a career out of getting paid by marrying and bringing over woman from Korea, I know he did 4, Not sure of the total yet, He did this for the money, But being straight they never asked him. Being gay and they say no,,, Sue our country for every penny you can get, Its the only way to make this marriage stuff right, I am gay, And I have been asked to join the family bussiness, I can make lots of money by doing what my Dad did, How many can I bring over with not one word said?.
Too bad polygamy was outlawed, you could have made bank back in the day...
So long as you can pass the tests they put you through to lessen the chance of the scam working, it's completely legal. On the other hand, you'd better hope you don't fall in love with a nice boy over there on one of your business trips...
Nice career. He must have had some great schooling to choose that career path.
I am, and it will be a much better place than it is now!
Nancy,
I'm sorry but an attitude like that would see the U.S. as a country of white land owning males with black slaves and wives with no rights. That is not the country I want for my daughters and granddaughters. What nonsense!
Completely agree, except you left out that all of those white men would also still be British subjects. These flag waving, bible thumping "America first" uber-patriots that complain that people should just get out if they don't like it here forget that the entire NATION was founded on protest and fighting against injustice. If they want to be where traditions are more embracing of their hardline "shut up or get out" ideology, then maybe THEY ought to move to one of those countries they are inevitably demanding we bomb back into the stone age, since their ideology is readily embraced there.
Kuhao wrote "This is ODD, My Dad made a career out of getting paid by marrying and bringing over woman from Korea,"
Your provides a dream import for American men as he provides a channel for women from a marriage culture to improve their marriage prospects. Otherwise, American men are faced with women born in America that file for divorce after an average of 6 yrs.
@Voiceontheleft
Restriction of marriage isn't injustice it's common sense. For your information 47 out of 55 signers of the constitution were Christians. 44 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independance were either Episcopal or Presbyterian. 73% of the founding fathers were either Episcopal or Presbyterian, so before you go remarking about bible thumpers it would do well for you to remember that 29 of the founding fathers were theologians. Who do you think was the MAJORITY in the signing of the articles of confederation? The audacity of the left ticks me off. In addition to being wrong, they're proud of it.
The Founding Father made exactly zero provisions for homosexuals in any laws. I don't know why liberals are using the Founding Fathers as examples.
can you explain why gay marriage is wrong then?
nope, they made provisions for equality.
@Blazera
Primarily homosexuality. Then there's the problem of fidelity:
ROFLMAO! You cite a study by the Family Research Council as evidence? Hardly unbiased and/or credible!
Another EPIC FAIL.
ErinNJ....and that remark above (4.21) from someone who cites dentist office magazine articles as evidence? Oh if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black......epic blunder.
What "dentist office magazine articles" would those be, Yank? Any of the ones that disprove your epic bull@!$%#, I'm guessing.
Vincent Denali:
The founding fathers made zero provisions for members of any minority group or women as well. Are you saying that's the ideal we should aspire to?
Itiswhatitis:
Your "argument" is so full of horses--t, I'm considering spreading it on my garden.
ItIsWhat!t!s (post #4.17) makes some wild and inaccurate claims. Here are a few:
I have spent over 20 years studying America’s founding fathers, and I call your statements 100% BS. You cannot cite one single VALID source for those statements.
Why am I not surprised? Whenever there is a lie about our Founding Fathers, why is it always from a Christian? What makes them think they gain anything by bearing false witness against our Founding Fathers? At the time of America’s founding, only 1 in 7 (14.3%) were Christians, and in the Deep South, it was only 1 in 15 (6.67%).
The authors of our founding documents (Declaration of independence and Constitution) were overwhelmingly Deists – not a single one was Christian. The USA is not in any sense founded on Christianity. Get over it.
It’s easy to prove me wrong – just find the clause in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence that mentions Jesus Christ.
Try to get your ideas from something other than an internet website.
and what's wrong with homosexuality?
Oh ErinNJ....you do make me laugh.
ItIsWhatItIS: Those fidelity statistics are flat-out ridiculous. They are, literally, made up. And, Yank in Australia - I'm not sure how being in a dentist's office lowers a magazine's credibility?
I live in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage. Guess which of the 50 states has the lowest divorce rate in the country? Guess which state's divorce rates have declined even further every year? Yeah.
Don't you worry CapeCodMom....ErinNJ knows exactly what I am talking about she is one of those "ballon people" full of hot but harmless when pop. Most "statistics" in this area are made up.... I suggest you compare the marriage rate relevant to the divorce rate before you start bragging about the great State of Mass.
shouldn't have been in this country that long anyway without citizenship as far as I'm concerned.
Wow they could have solved that by BEING ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED. Try making a point using logic next time.
Gee, Diana, my husband is Japanese, we've been married 30 years, and he's never become a citizen, although we've lived here for the last 26 years -- and we had our reasons for that. Perhaps other international couples have their own reasons, too -- which are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Right, Erin. Diana, you don't have to become a citizen to live legally in the US. Legal foreign residents pay the same taxes and have the same obligations and duties as citizens (except that they cannot vote nor get drafted). n Likewise, may, many Americans who have lived long in other countries have not taken citizenship in those countries.
Erin, you're absolutely right in that your relationship with your husband, however you define it, is none of anybody's business. However, I hope that your husband is a legal resident via another channel other than American citizenship. I don't agree with a lot of the laws in my jurisdiction, but I still am obligated to follow them.
How is that any of your business, either? And why would you even say such a thing? Actually, I didn't say that how I define my relationship with my husband is nobody's business (although it isn't); I said that why he has not become a citizen is nobody's business.
What is THAT supposed to mean? What laws are we allegedly breaking?
Ummmm, immigration law if he isn't here legally (I don't know, and don't really care)? And that isn't my business as a private citizen, but being as how this article is about marriage and citizenship opportunities being denied to a subset of people and the hardships that they are enduring as a result, I would hope that you would enjoy the opportunities provided to you by your life choice.
I completely respect a very wide range of family dynamics, but you have to practice them legally, or else change the laws. One of my friends doesn't believe in marriage, and she got screwed over by her long term partner. Because there were no laws saying she got half the couple's assets, she got next to nothing in the separation proceedings.
My only hope is that as an American citizen, you respect the laws of the land, and continue exercising your right to free speech against those you feel are unjust.
Since I'm not writing this from prison, I guess I already do "respect the laws of the land" -- without YOUR help or advice.
The rest of your post is drivel, as far as I'm concerned: you know nothing about me and my husband, and what you "hope" is irrelevant, and as long as we are breaking no laws, how we live does not concern you or anyone else. Do you think I would have brought this up if he were here illegally?
I never claimed to know anything about your personal life, nor am I offering my help or advice on how to live (I don't know where you got that one). Whatever hopes I have for the world and its people only impact me and nobody is under any obligation to make them a reality. I simply want any couple between consenting adults to be treated equally under the law. Since you brought up that your husband was a foreign national, you exposed one of the key points of the article in that heterosexual couples are treated differently under the law. Then you mentioned that for whatever reason, he was not an American citizen, which is just fine. Since you implied that whatever arrangement you have is within immigration law, I'm good.
My point to all this law is unjust, as many other laws are. I sincerely hope we can repeal this someday, but until we do, couples like the ones mentioned above are going to be forced into unfortunate situations if they want to live legally, and I am a strong proponent of people following the laws set forth by the government.
It's so hard to immigrate to this damn country anyway. My husband and I had a heck of a time... even being a heterosexual couple... thousands of dollars later... People wonder why there are so many illegals... this is one of the reasons. I'm sorry... but if you want to complain about illegal immigration, WE NEED IMMIGRATION REFORM! Kick out the green-carded people who are selling armaments and let in the hard-working ones who are migrant workers picking strawberries, etc, just trying to make a better life. The homosexual couples being married and being allowed to have green-cards hurts who? Besides the travel industry, no one... that's who. DOMA also prevents them from being considered immediate family and are not allowed to make decisions for their loved ones in hospitals and are often barred from seeing their loved ones after a medical emergency... These couples have been together longer, and lasted so far, under stress that most people do not have to face (even as a hetero-couple immigration was a beeyotch) AND ARE STILL TOGETHER. What does that say to your sanctity of marriage? Divorce rate at 52%... just sayin'. (you only have to be married for two years to get a permanent green card anyway, so you really think hetero couples who are "married" are always married for love or the right reason?... yeah, because EVERYONE at the immigration office from top to bottom told my husband and I to get married in order for him to get a green card after we searched for multiple other avenues for him to stay in the US legally... so this green card crap is just bs....)
Another "pick and chose" by this administration.
It has been "deferred" long enough. Time to KICK Mr. Smulian out of the country.
Ido, I have read a few of your posts today and I certainly hope you are just a troll. If not, you are an embarrassment to American society.
And the can of worms that has been opened starts ramping up.
The US used to let 250K people become citizens each year. About 20 years ago the Democrats increased that to 1 MILLION and do not count the other 500,000 "family members let in each year". We have too many uneducated people without any manufacturing jobs and need to change the annual immigration quotas back to 250,000/year and base that on education and skills. We don't need another 100,000 gardeners or hotel maids each year. The US takes in (not counting illegals) more new citizens as the rest of the world together. Cut the immigration quotas and round up and deport all illegals. They are filling our prisons (21% of all US Federal Prisons are illegal aliens, 27% in California) and bankrupting our country.
Jerry, you need to quit listening to Lou Dobbs.
From FactCheck.org:
What gays fail to realize is that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to them. The equal protection clause is subject to a rational basis test, and historically, the supreme court has never granted "special class" status on the basis of sexual orientation. The supreme court doesn't have to either, gay marriage isn't a compelling state interest. It's in the self interest of gays, and I wish they would stop coupling it for what it is. It's a sick, abnormal, deviant sexual lifestyle. Statistically speaking homosexual have considerable psychological and physical problems.
I personally feel the original qualification of homosexuality as an ego-syntonic mental disorder was correct. I'm not afraid of gays, I'm sick of them. So everyone is clear, homophobia isn't a medical or psychological term, so you sound like a complete idiot using it. It's a coined phrase. Hetero-phobia is an actual mental disorder. Homosexuals make up about 1 to 2% of the population. No one is for outright homosexuality, a majority of gay rights claim to fame has to do with an illegitamite tie to other issues such as justice. A majority of states have a constitutional ban on gay marriage, or choose, through referendum, to eliminate gay legislation. I wish these gays would stop believing their own propaganda, and worse always lying to the public to get them to believe it.
and...what's the rational basis?
also, damn those statistics are wrong. http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/07/homophobic-researcher-paul-cameron-in.html
source please.
@Blazera,
Google it. While your at it google homophobia, it's not a real word. Also, the source isn't important if you can't provide a counterargument.
How does it not apply to homosexuals? They are taxpaying, law-abiding US citizens, so of course it applies to them! And, as Justice Scalia noted in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent:
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, 604-05 (2003)
And discrimination based on sexual orientation fails the rational basis test:
Perry v. Brown et al., 3:09-cv-02292
ho·mo·pho·bi·a
[hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia?s=t
Looks like a real word to me. And you may not "fear" them, but you certainly meet the criteria for antipathy.
@realamericansfirst
Actually, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not keep figures on illegal immigrants. What solid numbers we can find point to a much smaller figure. A Department of Justice report from 2003 found that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations was under Immigration and Customs Enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants. Half of these prisoners were detained only because they were here illegally, not for other crimes.
REALLY?? Statistics from 2003??? Is that the best you can do? Do some checking on the internet and I think you will find these figures are as outdated as Obama's hope and change. Under HIS rules for immigration, they don't even detain someone just for being here illegally....so, logically, any illegals in prisons and jails now are there because they've committed other crimes!
And why should these guys be worried about repercussions if one over stays his visa??? Millions and millions of illegals don't care one bit...including Obama's aunty and drunk uncle. Just hang around and continue life as normal.
Homophobia is a charged word coined by the pro-pervert propagandists to ridicule those who disagree with them. In particular the phobia part is derived from Greek for fear. I am not afraid of them. I am disgusted by them. They need to go back into the closet where they belong.
The 14th Amendment does not apply to queers. It was written to protect the (then) newly-freed blacks. It was only intended to apply to blacks, and any other application of that amendment is over-stepping the Constitution, aka judicial activism.
Right, just like hydrophobic mean 'afraid of water'. /s
Rather then argue the meaning of an established word accept that you are deeply bigoted and homophobic. It's your right in this country to be so, after all.
Holy crap you are ignorant. Due process and equal protection may have been aimed at emancipated black people, but the language is clearly universal to all people. Further, original intention is a failed argument, our constitution is a living argument, and has a longstanding history of interpretation through the courts.
Lets look at what is prejudiced. Is it prejudice to say seperate but equal? Today many would say yes, but back then--no. And what of the plumber making money off seperation but equal by getting to make two sinks instead of one--is he also prejudiced? Or is he an opportunist? Some would argue the affirmative action is prejudiced. It assumes that just because someone happens to be black and poor, then they cannot compete in terms of intellectual merit with someone who is white and rich. We follow this pattern with things like the dream act. We give Pell grants away now to children of illegal immigrants. This sends the message that I should pay for someone to do the wrong thing, and not fix the wrong thing, because in the end, I can make someone else pay for the bill. Are the people making these laws prejudiced towards illegal immigrants, or they opportunists? Are homosexuals better than you or I? The numbers are inflated when they say 1 in 10 are homosexual. Is this corrected? No. Are there so many in the closet? I find that hard to believe. Is it genetic? No, the science has proved this wrong. Still, no media focus on these things. In fact just the other day I was reading a website that said a famous person was gay. Do I care? How is this news? It's as if someone thought that just seeing people who were gay meant we could redefine the facts via herd mentality. And why? For what purpose? To show us all that money is the only thing that matters and that every opinion can be bought? To try to stem off AIDS from the straight population? To establish government run churches to enforce our moral relativism? Because two lesbians kissing is hot? In every fanatic there is at least some doubt, why don't we see this in the militantly gay? Why do we see insults instead? I'd say because of prejudice.
WRONG. Science has proven that it is genetic:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors
Yeah. I've seen that one. Not a qualitative study. A poll group with no control. They also did this study before with bad results.
Do you check these things out before you post them or do you just keep going until you find something that agrees with you?
As I'm fond of saying: "Anything can be proven with statistics, 98 percent of all people know that!"
They should do a study on where gay people get all their money.
And as I'm fond of saying, if the results agreed with your bull@!$%#, you'd say just the opposite.
no, substantiate your own claim please.
it is when it's wrong.
Let me talk to you about science. Science is a very difficult field, and that is why so many scientists work together. It takes years to do ANYTHING, and perhaps that is why so many publications print the claptrap of a certain few. In the scientific community, these people who write claptrap are usually ostracized by many, but it takes sitting down with a scientist to explain why the claptrap is claptrap, which many of the people in the media with a particular feeling don't seem to want to do, (and they don't have to, by law). There is also some use in the claptrap. It offers humor. It tells you alot about how people behave and what their motives are. It sets the bar for youngster scientists so they can feel good about themselves doing better science than that. Just by looking at the Human Genome project for example, you start to realize how complex living things are. Now put yourself in their shoes...would it be easier to call up a bunch of twins, ask if they're gay, and if they are, ask them to do a little survey? Could this test be corrupted in some way? Is this research going to give me quality information? Could I alter my questions? Could I fib on the results, like on some standardized testing or voting? Yeah I'd say Hanz and Franz cracked the code. *lol*
i think they should let them do what they want as long as they legalize polygamy as well. why can't a guy have 2,3,4, 20 wives fair is fair.
Tired, old, and utterly-refuted argument. You are just being lazy at this point.
I'm fine with legalizing group marriages. It doesn't affect my life in any way, and it might bring just a little more happiness to some people in these trying times.
Polygamists are an issue of support and child welfare. One man and many women having oodles of kids and getting welfare because they can't afford them. Then there is the nightmare of inheritance and divorce and its impact on the other families. Two men or two women are not going to cause any more havoc than a heterosexual couple. There are already clean divorce and inheritance laws in place if they are given the title marriage. But, with Polygamy, how does the judge rule on Child Support when the guy has 3 other wives and 20 other children? That's why polygamy should stay illegal.
No, child support is based on parenthood, not the number of parents.
MG-71: thats right around the corner in this I'm allowed to do whatever feels good, and I'll sue your a$$ off if you disagree society.
Sorry toasty, I like what you say most of the time, but parenthood is not clean in these situations. Often a finding of parenthood is not synonymous with biological relation. I'd imagine in a polygamous relationship these situations would become exponentially more complicated.
I'm not against polygamy per se, but until they resolve these very real legal complications and address the fact that the vast majority of polygamous marriages are not exactly consensual in nature, then I'll still oppose it. Resolve these issues and I'll be among the first to champion their rights.
Well yeah, that's because it's normally left to the states, something unconstitutionally done by DOMA. That's sort of the whole point, EE.
Oh for Goddess sake... the sad old 'well gay marriage will open the door to polygamy, beastiality, child marriage...' blah blah bloody blah.
Marriage is a civil and personal commitment between two consenting adults of sound legal mind. Quit bleeting the Santorum playbook and realize that in many democracies world wide, and so far six states, gay and lesbian marriage has caused absolutely no such issues whatsoever. Examples? Israel, The UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand; states include New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont.
In none of those states or countries have people suddenly applied to marry dogs or multiple partners.
No, the only state in this country dealing with polygamy issues on a mass scale is Utah, home of the theocracy Mormon Church Romney is part of.
Odd how us liberals do not do what you accuse, yet the conservatives struggle with it? Hmm...
@Anna
Are you saying that the exception made for gays won't also have to made for other groups as well? Arguments such as the right to marry who you love can be configured to any group. Speaking of the original country to permit gay marriage, the Netherlands found that gay marriages lasted on average about two years. More to the point gay marriages don't define commitment to mean exclusiveness.
As opposed to heterosexuals
So are we really to believe that gay marriage won't lead to polygamy?
Only half of Utah is Mormon, they also have the highest subscription to porn.
you mean inclusion, not exception.
only consenting adults.
I've never heard of gay polygamists.
I love porn :)
@Blazera
So gay males don't marry more than one person, they just have open relationships....Either way, statistically they're not exclusively faithful as their heterosexual married men. Inclusion, exception, same thing. How can that argument be restricted to only consenting adults? What if those consenting adults are married already?
You apparently know nothing about what "legal consent" is (among many other things about which you apparently know nothing, as you have amply proven here).
And how is that relevant? Additionally, how is it anyone else's business whether the parties in a relationship are faithful or not? If the two people involved don't have an issue with it, who are you or anyone else to say it's wrong?
NOT the same thing -- get a dictionary (for starters).
Because children and animals cannot consent to such relationships, nor can they consent to entering into contracts -- which is what marriage is (see my first response above).
In that case, per our laws against polygamy, they could not enter into another marriage while still married to someone else.
DUH!
How does any of this apply to your little Japanese husband? I'm sure he's cute though. By the way, don't you have a job or something else to occupy your time?
The comment of gay vs. heterosexual male faithfulness is laughable at best... how ridiculous. There are many examples, nationwide, of cheating of heterosexual males. Give me a break.
then your polygamy argument is pretty bunk, wouldn't you say?
no, exception means them getting marriage would be a special privilege. It's not, it's a basic privilege to most couples, and granting it to them would be inclusive, extending this basic privilege to their group.
because only consenting adults can enter into a binding agreement like marriage. That cuts out all the animal and pedophile arguments, as the subjects are unable to consent to marriage.
Not to mention that the societal instability plural marriage has historically resulted in, in every society that ever allowed it, gives the state a compelling interest in preventing it.
People should understand by now that recognizing same sex marriage only STRENGTHENS the institution of marriage. It is the fair thing to do (striking down DOMA), the just thing, and legally correct in my estimation. We have enough laws and issues which make us appear "third world"; let's eliminate this particular discrimination.
and same sex marriage strengthens the institution of marriage how and by what objective studies do you base your assertion?
Well...you could read "Patterns of Relationship Recognition By Same-SexCouples in the United States" by Badgett and Herman. The relationship patterns they studied showed a lower divorce rate for same-sex couples...and states that allow marriage of same-sex couple.
I don't know what "strengthening" of marriage means in any context. But, whether or not same-sex marriage strengthens it, it certainly doesn't harm it. People who claim that it does NEVER, EVER explain how or provide concrete examples.
"The relationship patterns they studied showed a lower divorce rate for same-sex couples"
This is like saying that single fathers are better than single mothers because the family court system requires fathers to prove their income and worthiness as a parent that the system selects for only the best candidates.
We know heterosexual couples are a family institution for children? How does a geriatric marriage, opposite sex or same sex, strengthen marriage? How does a civilization benefit from same sex marriages?
Same sex marriage weakens the exclusivity of marriage by allowing a much larger pool to marry, of which homosexuals are only 1%.
How does a heterosexual marriage strengthen a marriage?
Well, for you to ask such a stupid question shows me that you know nothing about marriage at all.
First, God created marriage. Ever read the Bible?
Second, children are a natural product of man and wife. Forget that little piece of logic?
And please STOP with the comparison of "black people's rights".
The black community HATES that comparison.
Homosexuality is NOT a race. It is a type of behavior. And all behavior can be classified as good or bad.
Think about your foolish statements please. THINK !!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG. Marriage existed for thousands of years before organized religion.
Irrelevant, as the bible does not make our laws; we are a secular nation.
Irrelevant, as procreation is not required for marriage, and vice versa. And did YOU forget that the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children marry in this country?
Tough, as they are both inborn, and the arguments that have been raised against gay marriage are the same ones that were attempted in the past to keep interracial marriage illegal -- and they are just as unsuccessful so far.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality, is inborn, just like race. And like so many ignorant bigots, you confuse behavior with orientation -- which cannot be "classified as good or bad". BTW, what gives YOU the right to classify anything as "good" or "bad" for everyone else?
You first.
Sorry Elder, but all legitimate (not based or funded by a "religious" group with a foregone conclusion) studies show that people are BORN homosexual. If you actually believe in a creator god, that's who made them. Just like blacks, just like orientals.
Think about your foolish statements, please. THINK!!!!!!!!!!
Marriage predates your church by many thousands of years. Marriage existed when people worshiped other gods. Would you like to rethink that statement?
Children are the product of sex between two opposite sex people. Your point?
The logic is sound, regardless of what the black population feels about it. Jews hated when civil rights of black people were compared to their struggles as well. People want to think THEIR struggle is unique, even if it's not.
Homosexuality is an orientation, not a behaviour. In high-school I had a gay friend. Our behaviour was no different (we both were not having sex at that point) but he was gay and attracted to men, and I was straight.
Secondly, the most common comparison is between gay marriage and Loving v Virginia. In Loving the issue was the decision of a couple to marry outside their race. Race, like gender, is innate, but they choose to be with each other (presumably they had more options even then people who choose to date someone of a different race).
Beat me to it Erin :)
Elder,
How does a same sex marriage weaken - or in any way affect - any other marriage?
God didn't create marriage -- that's such a ridiculously non-sensical statement that it's obvious you made it up.
Children are also a product of in vitro fertilization, and of one-night stands between unmarried people, rape, and turkey basters filled with spunk. So what? It has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
Civil rights are civil rights. The basis of the illegal discrimination in civil rights does not matter - it could be on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or physical disability.
Gay rights are inevitable. You cannot do anything about it. Bringing your religious views to a civil matter is meaningless. WE WILL WIN!
E Pro Bono wrote "How does a same sex marriage weaken - or in any way affect - any other marriage?"
Marriage is in need of reform. Adding same-sex marriage (which includes the 1% homosexual population) does nothing to improve America's lowest ranking of family longetivity in the 1st world.
Better reforms are :
1) reduction or elimination of no-fault AKA one-side forced divorce
2) reduction of financial gain by the party initiating the divorce
3) default equal custody of children to eliminate the current family court bias of awarding child custody to the mother
"Children are also a product of in vitro fertilization, and of one-night stands between unmarried people, rape, and turkey basters filled with spunk."
No laws exist to encourage such casual production of children. Are you encouraging rape?
this didn't address the question at all. I want to see the answer too.
@EngEsq and Erin
How does the tradition of marriage negate God as being the designer of it's concept?
And what of capitol punishment, which can almost be taken directly out the book of genesis? We've become secular, but that doesn't negate America's christian heritage.
Also, a majority of the signers of the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the articles of confederation were Christians.
Forgot about the rational basis test have we? Marriage serves a compelling state interest because of children, which gays can't naturally produce. The Federal government has wisely chosen to
limit it's definition of marriages as between one man and one woman. Even if a couple is infertile they still fit that definition. The Federal Government left certain “policing powers” in thehands of the states. Gay marriage serves no compelling state interest. The equal rights clause doesn't apply to gays, who are not defined by the supreme court as a “suspect class”. African Americans however do fit that bill.
Unsuccessful has been the gay quest to find inborn homosexuality. Homosexuality is not inborn and I defy you to produce one conclusive scientific study to the contrary. Even Simon levy said there was no
gay gene. Oh wait, I know, the drive center in the brain, the hypothalamus, is larger in dead gay males.
First, it's behavior, not behaviour. Second, nearly any dictionary will define homosexuality as both an orientation and a behavior. Third desires are expressed, or fulfilled, by behaviors. Put differently, that's like saying, "Graffiti isn't a behavior. In high school, my friend and I both had spray cans. He was a tagger, I was not" So what makes him a tagger then? We don't call a liar a liar until we catch them in falsehood. We don't call a thief such until they steal. Do we call a homosexual a homosexual simply because they had a desire to do so? No, I think there's an action in there somewhere. You're arguing lack of opportunity. Whether you vote or not, doesn't stop voting from being a behavior or action. Whether you tag or not, doesn't stop graffiti from being an action or behavior. So, you didn't have sex in high school, how does that change that that same sex relations is as much homosexual as the desire for it? And you got thumbs up for your emotionally charged nonsense, that just proves around 33 people will believe anything.
Civil marriage as we know it existed for thousands of years before anyone believed in god. Furthermore, there is no proof that god exists, or existed -- so how could s/he possibly have "designed the concept" of marriage?
Forgot to attend civics class have we (as long as we're doing Yoda-speak)? Denying marriage to gays serves no "compelling state interest," and since no state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, your point is moot. In fact, Justice Scalia addressed this very point in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
You also seem to ignore the fact that marriage is not required for procreation, either; procreation is more about biology than it is about marriage.
Denying marriage to gays serves no "compelling state interest," either, as found in the Prop H8 case:
Perry v. Brown et al., 3:09-cv-02292
Bull@!$%# is your argument (still with the Yoda-speak, I see). When did you choose to be heterosexual (or whatever you are)?
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors
Apparently you also do not know that there are British spelling variations, as well as American ones. How limited your so-called "education" must have been (given the misinformation and lies you seem to relish spreading).
First prove there's a god!
Genesis is just a silly myth. Hardly a valid source for anything but BS! Besides, the US is not based or founded on christianity. We've always been secular, as is the intention of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. I defy you to prove otherwise!
So do you think that means we're automatically a christian nation by default? If the Ford Focus is built by christians, does that make the Ford Focus a christian car?
Demonstratably false! Gays can and have had children. They also raise children, either natural or adopted. Besides, children is irrelevant to marriage and is not a requirement for marriage or vice versa!
There is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry. By your *ahem* logic, the government should eliminate divorce, as that has no state interest but rather can only hurt the state.
The Constitution applies to ALL citizens.
Cite a conclusive scientific study which states homosexuality is not inborn!
when did he do that?
thou shalt not kill?
and what's your rational basis?
you're continuing to make an already debunked argument, infertile couples are allowed marriage.
and this debunks your claim that it's solely a behavior.
Ignoramuses that "believe" homosexuality is a choice will continue to believe that. Facts and well-reasoned arguments aren't going to change that.
ItIsWhatItIs: When did you chose to be straight? (Assuming you are...)
@Diana... get off your high-horse. Most people in the US wouldn't pass the citizenship requirements anyway, if they had to in order to gain citizenship (other than just being born, stupid law) AND most people have to give up their citizenship in their domicile in order to do so. My husband is a Dutch National, no way in hell am I letting him give up his citizenship in the Netherlands to become one here... also, takes about 7 years. What did you do for your citizenship? Oh yeah... you were just "born." We live in a modern age with lots of travelling and many chances to meet people from other nationalities/citizenship to fall in love with and get married to. You are so narrow-minded and short-sighted... I want my babies to be dual citizens... so they can CHOOSE... unlike if I were to ask my hubby to let go of his citizenship... Plus, what if we decide to live there eventually? We would close that door for good... So... don't judge until you walk a mile in our shoes.
Since when did you have to give up one citizenship to become a citizen in this country? If you love the Netherlands sooo much, WTH do you live here or want your kids to be American citizens. And your husband in only a Dutch National probably cause that's where he was "born". And yeah it's a stupid law that needs to be amended but BOTH my parents were legal American citizens when I was born.
Heath, it has not to do with US law, it depends on the other country. Japan, for example, does not accept dual citizenship, so a Japanese citizen who takes another citizenship and tries to maintain Japanese citizenship is breaking Japanese law.
Anyway, why should someone become a US citizen if s/he doesn't want to and is here legally? i I have never understood why people on this sort of thread seem to think it is awful to live legally in the US and not get American citizenship. I have lived legally in several other countries, never had the intention to take their citizenship. If you live in another country legally as a foreigner (here or in another country) you pay the same taxes and are subject to the same laws.....
Besides, most other developed countries will take care of their citizen's health. So if one maintains one's native citizenship, they can always go back to get proper medical care rather than go bankrupt here.....
Heath, due to their problems with people becoming Dutch Citizens and sending money back to places like Morocco their entire lives, in the past decade the Dutch Government has decided that you can only have ONE citizenship. EX... Him living here, he decides to be a US Citizen, he needs to give up his Dutch Citizenship... a Moroccan living there to become a Dutch Citizen has to give up their Moroccan Citizenship. ALSO... I would LOVE to live in the Netherlands, and as soon as we both find employment there, you can bet your bottom dollar that we will be GONE, especially with where this country is headed... BUT... If I choose to become a Dutch Citizen, the good 'ole US OF A will make me give up my American Citizenship... so I won't be getting Dutch Citizenship either....
When my grandma got her Citizenship it took SEVEN YEARS! Forget it...
Let them do what they want as long as it's not in public. Who really cares? It's a tough way to have to live your life anyway. I'm just tired of everyone finding some scuzzy attorney and filing suit. Talk about a waste of taxpayers money!
Way to support same sex marriage as long as you don't have to see it. Can heterosexual couples be together in public in your opinion?
Separation of church and state.
Separation fo Church and state - not of families!
Gay couples are just one instance of the disgraceful way our immigration law treats the loved ones of U.S. citizens. If U.S. had citizens had to go through the same bull@!$%# to marry somebody from out-of-state, Washington would have been burned to ashes by now...
It's a good thing! :)
Democrat: "Repeal DOMA, uphold Obamacare".
Republican: "Repeal Obamacare, uphold DOMA".
Which one of the 2 laws means more for the vast majority of Americans? Which one is more worth SCOTUS time?
Democrat: "Repeal DOMA, uphold Obamacare".
both. and there is a huge difference between the two, past the easy response "ACA is unconstitutional"
And yet nobody seems to be able to tell me which article of amendment the ACA supposedly violates...
listen Toasty, no I don't know the *article.* I do know that it is based upon our constitutional right to not have to purchase something we do not want. However, I find it unconstitutional to pay for someone elses medical bills when they can't, because it's federal law to treat anyone who shows up in an ER. At some point in ones life, they are going to need medical care, so they should be required to have medical insurance for that care.
gays are by census count about 3% of the population yet garner attention as if they were 51%. the larger questions are: which one will cost our country more morally or financially. keep DOMA, dump Obama care. you can have my tax money for the mandate when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
It's less about what part of the Constitution it violates and more about it not being a power granted to the federal government. So I guess that's what you are looking for. The government is not explicitly granted the authority to compel a person to engage in commerce. If found unconstitutional, it would be on the grounds that the federal government exceeded its authority in regulating interstate commerce. A referee is authorized to monitor and regulate how a basketball game is played, but they can't force a player on the bench to participate. Just made that up. I like it.
Hey bigpicture, you say: I do know that it is based upon our constitutional right to not have to purchase something we do not want.
So how come I don't hear the anti-Obama crowd screaming for the repeal of laws requiring drivers to show proof they have car insurance? Just curious.
thebigpicture.
You and I currently pay for the uninsured to the tune of $1000.00 per year.
Uninsured people use the ER. ER's cannot turn away people in need. The costs are added to OUR insurance premiums.
Repeal Obamcare, DOMA, food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, and all the rest of the total of 70 govrnment programs that give lazy deadbeats and welfare queens money every month so they can sit and home and drink beer or smoke dope every day. No more welfare state.
Jerry you are hilarious. What are you going to do with all the extra homeless sleeping on your lawn?
So in other words, BigPicture, "sorry Toasty, I don't have an answer."
If gays are such a small percentage of the population, why do the Republicans spend so much time denying them their rights? It takes far more time (and money) to defend laws like DOMA than simply to declare that gays have equal rights in all secular matters.
Larry-2094469 I agree with you .. that was the point I was trying to make...
No toasty I answered you. I am not a lawyer nor am I in politics. I am an educated 26 year old who does have an opinion about health care reform. Does not knowing the specific article make my opinion on the subject not valid? Was I correct in my assestment of said article? Please let me know if it isn't.
and Justin who asked me "So how come I don't hear the anti-Obama crowd screaming for the repeal of laws requiring drivers to show proof they have car insurance? Just curious."
Well I am not anti-Obama, so I wouldn't be screaming that. However, their argument about car insurance is that you are not required by law to buy a car, so if you don't want to pay for car insurance, don't buy a car. Which is fine logic by me in the health care argument - you don't want to pay for health insurance fine, but you don't get treated by a doctor or hospital unless you are paying up front out of pocket, or have collateral to put against your health costs.
No, it just means for something to be unconstitutional it has to violate the constitution. You can dislike the law if you want, but don't try to tell people that it's unconstitutional without being able to back it up with facts.
bigpicture, it is not unconstitutional "to pay for someone elses medical bills when they can't, because it's federal law to treat anyone who shows up in an ER." It is a simple federal law that would have been ruled unconstitutional years ago, if it were unconstitutional (which it is not, as a lawyer I can assure you of that). You miss the point that ACA is an attempt to pass on the costs for this that you are already paying to the people who are actually using the system without paying for it. It reduces the amount of money you have to pay for those who are currently uninsured.
I think most people are missing the big picture on this health care issue. The US is flat broke & has been since 1959. We are currently spending 40 cent in interest for every dollar the federal government spends. The economist estimates in another 2 years the national debt will surpass the GNP of the US. For a child born today he will owe $30,000 on the national debt just for being born. This healthcare boondoggle will cost $1,700,000,000,000 & that is a conservative estimate by Obama's own people. That is money we don't have, I did the math & it comes out to $5,312.50 for every man woman & child in the US. That's just the 1st year, then you have to take into account that 51% of the population pays no income taxes so your share just doubled.
It's no one elses business who one chooses to love. Not yours, not mine, not the government, and not the church. It's a man and a womans, a man and a mans, a woman and a womans, a transgender and a transgenders. period. end of story. find something interesting with your own life other than putting down someone elses.
nope. only God's business. transgender is a misnomer. do a gene test, the person is still their birth sex genetically.
And according to your own beliefs, god made them that way. Gay, bi, trans, etc.
still kicking,
sorry to be rude, but I can't have any sort of serious conversation with someone who expecst me to try to understand their position, when their position is because God says so.
Pssst, God isn't real, but the way people feel are. So, it means more to me that people feel comfortable about who they are, even if it's a choice and not genetics, then what some some non existent "being" thinks is right ;)
Still kicking,
What about people with non conforming genes (xxy, xxx or damaged/incomplete sex determining genes)?
And hormonal effects can cause changes where a XX has a penis or a XY has a vagina?
Those same hormonal influences can leave the genitals conforming to their genetics but influence brain development to give someone male genitalia but a brain structure more like a females (and vice versa)?
Most of these examples all occur and are pretty much permanent before puberty and often before birth
So all these examples were made by your God and left them with no choice
Trans-gender and Inter-sexed are both real, like it or not
Let's just throw morals and common sense out. Let's just do what we want. Let's take all the thingss that made America great and flush it so some ally cats can marry their dogs, bring in illegal lovers and make everyone embrace this rubbish.
If you don't like it MOVE. There is nothing wrong with our country that a swift kick in a$$ wouldn't cure.
Gee Jim, tell what's "moral" about discriminating against people because of how they were born?
no Jim, what makes america GREAT is the fact that we do not allow ANYONE to discriminate another. If YOU dont like it, why don't you go to Uganda, or some other country where it is acceptable to murder someone who is gay. I assume those are the kind of morals you are looking for.
Jim... you mean the idea that the founding fathers had about not letting the church dictate what laws are created? The separation of Church and State idea? What, other than religion, is wrong with same-sex marriage? If you don't want to allow same-sex marriage, don't allow it in your church, picket all you want, but it doesn't harm THE STATE to allow it. Also, America was FOUNDED on the idea of freedom FROM religion as well as OF religion, it was also founded as a refuge for many people. What laws do we have now, especially immigration, uphold those ideals?
Oh... the US was also founded on FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IF I DON'T LIKE IT, I CAN B!+c# ALL I WANT! That's part of the bill of rights baby... If you don't like people being able to speak what they feel is unfair, whatever, maybe you are the one who should be moving... but I wouldn't tell you to move, because you telling us to move is also part of freedom of speech... but you're right... let everyone with a contrasting point of view move and this country will be filled with backwards hill-billies... RIGHT ON!!!
No response, Jim?
Diana, the article says that they move back and forth every 6 months-that is how long a reular visiting visa lasts in most western countries.
It's about time someone brought this unconstitutional law up to the chopping block.
After almost 40 years of marriage to the same lady, I believe Clint Eastwood's quote best describes my opinion about gay marriage: “These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?” Eastwood opined. “I don’t give a f*ck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of.”
“They go on and on with all this bullsh*t about ‘sanctity’ — don’t give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.”
When are people going to stop viewing everyone as individuals and begin seeing us as one whole unit? If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out the Zeitgeist Movement. Just have some form of intelligence combined with an open mind and you might be surprised. Just sayin'.
what about the bi sexual bi nationals? hey, i got a husband and a wife, and then i'm into bestiality, so there's the dog.
where does it stop?
Where does it stop? How about two consenting adults?!? The whole "slippery slope" argument is played out.
It stops when people like you and other posters stop being ignorant bigots equating healthy sexuality to beastiality. YOU are the disgusting ones, you have some sick thoughts in your heads that need purging. Why is it that a homosexual makes you think about having sex with dogs? Maybe you should see a shrink to get over your sexual problems.
So for the gay couple in retirement, of which the non-citizen has HIV/AIDS, needs to stay in the country for medical care. So the problem I have with allowing something like this is that it opens up a gray area ripe for abuse. If the HIV/AIDS foreign national is granted citizenship as the spouse of an American citizen, he becomes eligible for benefits that he otherwise would not get. That sounds awfully convenient for a senior in retirement with HIV/AIDS that needs this country's healthcare and benefits.
All the examples like polygamy and marriage to an animal are stupid, I agree, but it does raise the important question - where does it end? If we allow this, do we begin a slippery slope? Or by having this debate at all, have we already?
Would you do everything in your power to have your wife or child treated for cancer in another country if they had better treatments? What's the difference?
I won't end. It can't. Once you "break the glass" that is marriage and allow other situations to be deemed "marriage"...There is no end. Who knows what we will see. When you start making the rules up as you go, you get what you get. Sad.
There is no slippery slope here. The argument for same-sex marriage is based on "equal protection" -- that is, if something is legal for heterosexuals, it should be legal for gays. Where's the "slippery slope"?
Being gayee must be a drag..
I know husbands and wives who cannot get their foreign spouse a green card!! Even some of our own military who marry overseas like in Germany are having a hard time. Get in line!
Hard to get in line when there isn't any line, or when you're not allowed in the line.
I think that's the point, marilynne. They just want the chance to get in line.
The third story today on MSNBC about gays or transsexuals who make up 2% of the population. What is the Department of Defense doing today with our tax dollars in Afghanistan? What is North Korea or Iran doing to terrorize the DOD or State Department this week? Will they attack during Easter? What is happening with housing and foreclosures? Why did the stock market go down 64 points after Kentucky Wildcats blew away Kansas? What about the Master's tournament this weekend? What about Bruce Willis having a daughter at 57?
Hey when you are a Single, Fat, Gay, Black, Disabled, Pregnant, Female, Vet, drug addict, with kids the world is yours according to the Libtards
2%? Not even close try 10%, and why wouldn't you include bisexuals? They can also be in same sex relationships. Bruce Willis having a kid is bigger news, really? Your ignorance is almost as astounding as your warped priorities!
Try 1%. 10% is an old figure from original 1950's Kinsey reports that described men that have engaged in homosexual behavior for 2 or fewer years, and included the prison population.
How can a behavior-based group demand and receive special rights without identification? Yes, they are rallying for same-sex, not homosexual, marriage. Just put a box on the US Census to specify homosexual. When the entire group is willing to self-identify and allow themselves to be counted, laws can be changed to accommodate them.
What "behavior-based group" are you referring to, Vincent? And what "special rights"?
The problem with percentages is they differ so much depending upon how the questions are asked. For example, if asked if a man identifies as gay or bisexual there is about a 3% chance of him saying yes. If you poll a group of men if they ever had a consensual sexual encounter with another man, the number jumps to 15%. Include fantasies about gay activities and the number jumps higher (I don't actually recall what it is).
Like most traits, I think sexuality is more of a spectrum that an on-off switch. I'm solidly straight, but obviously more men are ok with experimenting than identify as gay. I have a gay friend, who is curious about women, but still always prefer men. How would you classify him? How about if he married a woman due to societal pressure? See, not so cut and dry.
Ahh ... you've just highlighted the flaw in your own posting. Gays aren't asking for "special rights". They're asking for the SAME rights.
Because, Vincent, the Constitution say that doesn't matter. Believe it or not, and I know this may come as a shock to you, they too are entitled to the Constitution's protection...
Erin NJ wrote "What "behavior-based group" are you referring to, Vincent?"
Homosexuals. Unlike women and racial minorities which are easily identified, both by sight and census data, homosexuals refuse to self-identify. Homosexuals are a behavior-based group, and that distinguishes them from other groups that have fought for civil rights.
Barry-NJ wrote "Gays aren't asking for "special rights". They're asking for the SAME rights."
Incorrect. Homosexuals are asking for the right to marry a person of the same sex. Existing marriage rights are about marrying a person of the opposite sex, a right that is also extended to homosexuals.
Toasty MCGrath wrote "Because, Vincent, the Constitution say that doesn't matter. "
Which part of the Constitution? 14th Amendment? Each and every homosexual is entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex like any heterosexual. There is no mention of behavior-based groups in the US Constitution. If so, correct men.
Perhaps a new, behavior-based group could be established. I'm all for that. Just add a box to the US Census and every application for anything and have every homosexual proclaim their sexual orientation in an official capacity. Currently, homosexuals refuse to self-identify. Every employment application includes a box for sex, and usually, they ask for race. How about a box for sexual orientation?
I think you need to meet, like, any gay person, before trying to pass off such terrible lies.
a dishonest play on words, you're well aware straight couples can marry but gay couples cannot, and that is discrimination. If the situation were switched, and you found yourself not being able to marry the person you love, the fact would be quite clear.
Vincent Denali:
Section III of DOMA expressly forbids the U.S. Census Bureau from collecting any data with regard to population percentages of GLBT people. The 2% -3% often cited by conservatives were figures derived from the 2000 and 2010 US Census for those cohabitants who (at that time) wished to be considered same sex partners. Even the word "spouse" was forbidden.
Single persons identifying as GLBT were not counted. Therefore, an accurate population count is virtually impossible. Many GLBT persons also remain closeted for fear of retribution from local groups, family and employers.
Just admitting to being gay can cost someone their livelihood and sometimes, their very life.
Here you go VIncent:
Just my opinion, I think that all 50 states and its territories should pass same-sex marriage bills before DOMA be considered unconstitutional. Right now there are states that don't allow same-sex marriage, so my feelings are that DOMA is fine the way it is. I'm against same-sex marriage due to my religious beliefs.
sempfi ... how does same-sex marriage impinge on your rights in any way?
Well sempfi22 if you're against gay marriage because of your religion that fine. But why do millions of gays and lesbians have to live their life based on your standards. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they choose.
I have a feeling that 50 years from now, people are going to look at DOMA the same way as we look at Plessy v. Ferguson today.
And when DOMA is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it will invalidate any anti-gay marriage laws that may exist at that time, which is why many states are waiting to see what happens to DOMA before taking any action on such laws.
Rayanne hit it, but I'll add a couple things:
1. You don't even need a unanimous vote to ratify an amendment to the constitution, it's only a two thirds majority vote in congress, and then 75% of the states (38). I'm willing to bet that as soon as the numbers are in on either side, it'll be pushed for.
2. Just because a religion is for/against something doesn't impact the laws of the country. That's the whole separation of church and state. To that end, your private group is welcome to exclude those that you deem to be practicing a lifestyle that doesn't meet with your ideals just like the KKK can exclude non-white members and Nazis can exclude those of the Jewish faith.
USA is a country that creates these useless laws that go against nature.
50 to 100 yrs from now, USA will be the first nation to recognize marriage between humans and animals (dogs, cats, deers, and any other animal that perverted people seem fit). Because some of the perverted minds (already in PORN culture that will spread to another 3% and maybe 6%) are already demanding changes to laws. It is the 80-20 rule or 95-5% rule. Due to these 5% sick minds, the other 95% have to suffer and go through changes to laws of land..
how are you suffering? enlighten us with your brilliance. :)
In nature, some animals eat their young or their mates. Sooo, your "logic" is that we should make it required to do so also, so we don't "go against nature"? lol.
Since animals can't give consent, your whole posting is moot. Stop wasting your time and ours.
It is we who are suffering you! Ya' DOPE!