So are name callers ....

If somebody, anybody, can offer up a legitimate reason as to why same sex marriages should not be allowed, I am all ears. Make your case but here are the ground rules:

• You can not cite any reference to the Bible. The Bible is over 2,000 years old and written by men, not God. It really should not be used when codifying laws. If you insist on using the Bible, then in fairness and full disclosure others should be able to use the Qua-ran, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and George Orwell.
• You have to prove how your rights as a married heterosexual couple are infringed by allowing same sex marriage.

The pool is open - what say you Newsviners?

Bob,

Opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on rational (ie, objective) thinking anymore than sexual preference itself is. Therefore asking anti-gay marriage people to give rational reasons their opposition to it is useless because most of our preferences are born in the subconscious where we have little control and almost no ability to "see" or interfere with them.

The use of religious rationales is all they have because there simply are no objective ones. And nothing is more infuriating to a person than hating something in your gut but not being able to find a real world reason for it.

Kids are not born hating anything. Their brains are extremely plastic and can be molded to accept any set of repeated experiences as reality. Hence the statement of the Catholic church of old, "Give us your child until he is six and then you can have him back."

The recent youtube video showing the 5 or 6 yr old singing an anti-gay song to roars of applause by his congregation is highly disturbing for exactly this reason. It demonstrates the process of propagandized bigotry taught to the child being celebrated by the group.

This instilling of bigotry at such an early age is treasured by the anti-gay groups and is the reason they are so opposed to the fact of homosexuality being discussed in schools. It counteracts the group's desire to create anti-gay sentiments at a gut or subconscious level in their children...just as was done t them.

Reason is the enemy of bigotry...so don't expect any bigots to take you up on your proposition.

Bob-429579: I'll just give you this with out reference to the Bible.

We humans are supposed to be more then just animals, only animals mate with others of the same sex, do to they are just animals and live by Instincts and not any real logical thinking processes. If we allow same sex marriage then we are saying were nothing but a bunch of ANIMALS living like ANIMALS.

To the point instead of going farther with our evolution away from being just animals, we are going back down to being just ANIMALS.

Is this what you want we all ready have many problems with in our societies dragging us down and now you want to continue this decline by letting same sex marriage or as I see it Being like Animals with the same sex. Then my friend we are nothing, but animals living like animals and then we will be treating each other like animals.

Leatherneck,

We humans are supposed to be more then just animals,

Actually, according to science, we ARE animals. The fact that this behavior is found in other animals speaks to the fact that it's natural.

Here's some more questions for you, or anyone capable of answering them. The answers to these questions would actually be what Bob is looking for...

Let's start with the basic civil rights involved here,

Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.

Question #1-

So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?

Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.

This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.

That being said...

Question # 2 -

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

Question #3-

AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?

@Sarah

Thank you, so much.

Sarah-3043284 - but then there is the fact that we as humans seem to be divided into two groups....
those who wish to live as animals and can't or won't control their "animal instincts" and those who do.

Sarah-3043284: Actually, according to science, we ARE animals. Thank you, you made my point very well.

Now tell me Sarah one other animal species that try to live by rules and laws. Tell me one other animal species that build ships, planes or can go into outer space all by themselves.

If we are nothing but animals then we don't need to keep going forward with our evolution. Lets stop and go back to living in caves and hunting for food with our bare hands.

Do to from the sound of it Sarah you and people like you want to live in a animal world and live like animals. Sounds great in that type of world only the strong survive and you as a women don't get to chooses who you mate with. The alpha male of your area will do with you as he pleases.

Truett, humans live by animal instincts. Reproduction is based off of instinct. You didn't need the bible to teach you that one.

And if anyone thinks Heterosexuality is simply based on controlling yourself then they are closet homosexuals. Who you sleep with may be a choice, but who you are attracted to or fall in love with is NOT.

Leatherneck,

You didn't answer any of my questions??? How come?

Whoa. Derail. You all went off on a tangent about animal instincts. Can we get back to the original question, which was to explain from a legal standpoint how your rights would be infringed on by allowing same sex marriage?

By not allowing same sex-marriage, rights are being infringed on. I'm Wiccan, and Wicca has sects for lesbians (Dianics) and gays (the Minoan Brotherhood.) By refusing to acknowledge same-sex marriage, the government of the US is infringing on the Dianics and the Minoans right to practice their religion as they see fit, which is unconstitutional according to the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion clause.

Can I hear your argument?

I don't see anyon here who responded answering Sarah's questions.

Sarah, great job on your post here. I've read others by you in the past and you always make good points.

TruettCollins: When you say "there is the fact that we as humans SEEM..." you lose all credibility.

Leatherneck: When you make a paragraph such as this...

Do to from the sound of it Sarah you and people like you want to live in a animal world and live like animals. Sounds great in that type of world only the strong survive and you as a women don't get to chooses who you mate with. The alpha male of your area will do with you as he pleases.

Seriously...where did you even come up with that from Sarah's comment? And, do you even proof read what you write before you post?

Wexy,

It was a bit creapy, wasn't it?

Amanda-2017567: By not allowing same sex-marriage, rights are being infringed on.

Wrong, we have over 236 years of history of at no time has same Sex Marriage been a right or an issues. Now in the 21st century its now a issues and a small % wants it as a right. Sorry, but Same Sex marriage is not even apart of a religion. So since its not apart of a religion then it can not be said its unconstitutional do to freedom of religion clause. Since at no point in history has Same Sex-Marriage even been apart of a Religion, nor has it ever been a right.

If people want to act like animals in the confines of there own bedroom, that's up to them. Yet if they want to act like animals in public that is NOT A RIGHT.

When people act like animals we normal put them in a ZOO called Prison or we kill them. As a moral and Ethical society of people who are trying to be more then just animals. We want to be human, not animals.

Leatherneck,

Why aren't you answering my questions???

Why I not answering your questions, is that they are only a fragment of a bigger picture. It would be the same as me taking a 10-page research paper and only reading the 1st sentence and turning around making questions out of it. That's why.

Leatherneck,

How are they only a fragment??? Here, let me break it down...

1. Is this a matter of law?

2. Is the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage the gender of one party?

3. Is it logical to then assume, that within that gender must lay the key to gay marriage being a slippery slope, since it's the only difference?

Your whole animal thing is beside the point, unless you can link that animal behavior to gay marriage, and then link gay marriage to something which would be harmful to society. In order to do that, you need to answer my questions.

Leatherneck,

Remember before the 20th century when blacks and women didn't have the same rights as white men for HUNDREDS of years? Are you going to argue that blacks and women shouldn't have been granted those rights?

Leatherneck: When you say

"If people want to act like animals in the confines of there own bedroom, that's up to them. Yet if they want to act like animals in public that is NOT A RIGHT."

Are you saying that gay people holding hands in public or kissing each other goodbye in public is the act of an animal? What animalistic things are gay people going to do in public if they are finally allowed to marry?

Leatherneck says:

Sorry, but Same Sex marriage is not even apart of a religion. So since its not apart of a religion then it can not be said its unconstitutional do to freedom of religion clause.

Wicca is derived from the ancient pagan Druids, which predate Christianity--many Christian holidays (like Christmas and Easter) were taken from our pagan celebration days (Yule and Beltane), and it has always been part of our practices for Wiccans. Dianics, under our belief, are allowed to marry and so are our Minoans.

Freedom to practice our religion has ALWAYS been a right guaranteed us by the Constitution. Our founding fathers considered it so important that they made it the 1st Amedment, no less:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since at no point in history has Same Sex-Marriage even been apart of a Religion, nor has it ever been a right.

Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or discouraging, but homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire and Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful. There are several Hindu temples which have carvings that depict both men and women indulging in homosexual sex. The Kama Sutra has a whole chapter devoted to the subject. Hindu scriptures contain several stories that metaphorically have homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or other kinds of queer overtones, often involving the most prominent Hindu deities. There are Hindu deities who are intersex (both male and female), e.g., Ardhanari, who is the unified form of Shiva and Parvati; who switch from male to female or from female to male, e.g., Mohini, who is the only female Avatar of Vishnu; male deities with female moods and female deities with male moods, e.g., Krishna turning into Mohini to fulfil Iravan's boon; deities born from two males or from two females, e.g., Ayyappan, who is considered to be "Harihara Putra", the son of Shiva and Vishnu, in his Mohini Avatar, and so on.

Wexy: Different life and different experiences, I have come across gays not holding hands in public or kissing each other goodbye in public. I have found them having *** in parked cars, bathrooms, and other areas. Not something you want to see first hand its discussing.

What animistic things are gay people going to do in public if they are finally allowed to marry?

Wrong question. They already do this even if not married, but how far are we as a species going to turn back the evolutionary clock by excepting it and allowing it? How much farther do you want us as a species to revert back to being just animals. Since like you and Sarah, as far as your concerned its normal and we are in fact just ANIMALS.

RobinN-2234320: Difference between Black or Women then being gay. Black is a color and women is a gender. Being Gay is a choice, its not a color, gender, race, or Sex (Male part/Female part) its a choice.

If its ok to let two gays marry then you open the door for Polygamy. Do to the same argument your making for gays can be applied for them too.

This is why Sarah I say your questions is just a fragment of the big picture.

Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.

So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?

Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.

This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.

That being said...

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a Polygamy marriage, is the number of spouces you can have, what is inherent to that gay marriage which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?

Sorry my computer froze and would not let me continue to finish my response.

Cut out:

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a Polygamymarriage, is the number of spouces you can have, what is inherent to that gay marriage which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?

Replace with:

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a Polygamymarriage, is the number of spouces you can have.Remember, you're ONLY changing the amount of people you can marry, so logically, it must be something within which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things. The answer to that would be yes by your own argument.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass spousal discrimination in contract law.

Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religious sacrament or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.

This is why the STATE issues the licence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.

Replacing gay with heterosexual we get the following.

Since the only difference between a heterosexual marriage and a Polygamy marriage, is the number of spouces you can have.Remember, you're ONLY changing the amount of people you can marry, so logically, it must be something within which would lead you to believe heterosexual marriage would open the door to any of those things.

The answer to that would be yes by your own argument.

How is this slippery slope argument any different than the one with the word gay? How would gay marriage somehow lead to poly-marriage when hetersosexual marriage did not? In each case the only difference is the number of the parties involved.

Leatherneck: I have found them having *** in parked cars, bathrooms, and other areas. Not something you want to see first hand its discussing.

Although I highly doubt you have seen that much actually going on, how is that any different than heterosexual people doing the same things? You do realise that it's not just gay people who can be that "disgusting", as you put it. Did you do any of those things as a teen growing up? That does happen ya know? But I guess when a gay couple do those things it becomes less human.

Understand something, nobody here said we are "just animals". There's more to the whole animal statement than just what you take from it. I have a feeling that you didn't answer the original question because you don't fully understand it. It's just a lot easier to act offended and change the subj.

Just an observation,

Thank you. My point exactly.

Leatherneck,

For your replacement to be logical, you have to link being gay, to marrying more then one person. THAT's the point. What's that link? There's no difference between the number of people in a gay marriage and the number of people in a straight marriage, as I said, the ONLY difference is the gender.

Otherwise, as JustAnObservation said, straight marriage would have led to it.

Saying that Gay marriage opens the doors to Poly marriages and beastiality marriages is an irrational thought. But, how can you argue with an irrational person? You can't. Nothing will change their mind.

Difference between Black or Women then being gay. Black is a color and women is a gender. Being Gay is a choice, its not a color, gender, race, or Sex (Male part/Female part) its a choice.

If its ok to let two gays marry then you open the door for Polygamy. Do to the same argument your making for gays can be applied for them too.

Why are you grouping color and gender together when they are two different classifications? Also, please prove to me that being gay is a choice.

Your idea of having the door open of polygamy is asinine. In a polygamist community, there is no marriage bond between the multiple husbands or the multiple wives, therefore the marriage is actually between heterosexual partners. Maybe we should ban marriage between straight people to close the door on polygamy.

RobinN-2234320: Look at your post then that one. What you dont think that Gay people could also go into polygamy too. If you redifine marrage to include anyone can marry anyone no matter the sex. Once That is done and polygamy comes around then gay people can marry as many gays as they want too.

Your idea of having the door open of polygamy is asinine, no its not.

X+Y=Man and women getting married.

You want X+X or Y+Y= too be able to get married.

So then whats to stop:

X+X+X or Y+Y+Y or X+Y+X or Y+X+Y to get married too.

Do to you're own argument:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Why would this only apply to X+Y, X+X or Y+Y and not anyone else.

So again you want to allow same sex marriage do to you see it as ok and not polygamy. Yet the BS your all spouting can and will apply to polygamy do to by your own argument that as long as one person loves another they should be able to marry does not matter the sex, well too can be said that as long as many love each other who are you to infringe on there rights to marry one another even if its 3 to 100 of them. Who are you to infringe on there Rights to love one another.

Nice argument, but again it only opens the door for others.

Why would this only apply to X+Y, X+X or Y+Y and not anyone else.

It does apply for everyone. And when polygamists start fighting for their right to marry then we can talk about it. You want to fight for polygamy? Then by all means. I have nothing against it.

We're talking about the right for TWO people to marry. Not 3 or 4 or 5. TWO legal consenting adults. That's what you need for a marriage.

Leatherneck: It's obvious that you knowabsolutely nothing about Polygamy and how it's practiced. By your method above, you can pretty much say that same sex marriage leads to any number of things. Did you know that almost all Polygamists are heterosexual? If opposite sex marriage didn't make anything happen for Poly's then why would same sex marriages?

Wexy: . Did you know that almost all Polygamists are heterosexual?

Did you know that up in tell the 21st century Marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yet people are trying to change that.

ana78041: So let me get this right, the majority says **** no to Same Sex Marriage, but **** us. Were wrong.

If it comes to polygamy, we can talk then since were on the same page about it being wrong.

ana78041: So let me get this right, the majority says **** no to Same Sex Marriage, but **** us. Were wrong.

Civil rights cannot be voted on. It doesn't matter if the majority agrees with it or not.

Wexy: . Did you know that almost all Polygamists are heterosexual?

Did you know that up in tell the 21st century Marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yet people are trying to change that.

ana78041: So let me get this right, the majority says **** no to Same Sex Marriage, but **** us. Were wrong.

If it comes to polygamy, we can talk then since were on the same page about it being wrong.

Your arguments are weak and hold no water Leatherneck. Simply saying something doesn't make it so. So far I haven't read one valid argument from you. You can either start to, or maybe it would be best to end your discussion here.

The term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.

Not all types of discrimination are unlawful, and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.

Sorry I don't see Sexual Preference or orientation listed as a Civil Right.

ONLY: It illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin.

So please enlighten me on how this is even a CIVIL RIGHTS issue?

Leatherneck: as you provide no documentation of your source, I cannot tell how this "definition" was created. I do know that the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia defined marriage as "a basic civil right." I'll go with them on this one rather than on a "definition" from an anonymous source.

Dslsca: Loving v. Virginia= ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States=RACE. Race is a CIVIL RIGHT.

Same Sex Marriage, Sexual Preference, or Sexual Orientation is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.

you provide no documentation of your source=Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Look it up.

Again this is not a civil rights issue so you don't have a leg to stand on.

I'll go with them on this one=Good that is again a RACE ISSUE=Civil Right. Yet trying to uses it for Gay Marriage does not apply since again that is NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Nice try, but again WRONG.............................................

Leatherneck: I quote from the decision in Loving v. VA: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Note that "race" is not mentioned here nor are the genders of the people seeking marriage. Marriage IS a civil right.

dslsca: if you bothered to read Loving v. Virginia on the US Supreme Court web sight you might have found this:

Again Loving V. Virginia WAS A RACE ISSUE........

U.S. Supreme Court

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Loving v. Virginia

No. 395

Argued April 10, 1967

Decided June 12, 1967

388 U.S. 1

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Syllabus

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12.

206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78, reversed.

Page 388 U. S. 2

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Footnote 1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court

Page 388 U. S. 3

of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia anti-miscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing their convictions. On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court.

The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after

Page 388 U. S. 4

modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions. [Footnote 2] The Lovings appealed this decision, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966, 385 U.S. 986.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 258 of the Virginia Code:

"Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

"Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are § 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, [Footnote 3] and §§ 20-54 and 1-14 which,

Page 388 U. S. 5

respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. [Footnote 4] The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes.

Page 388 U. S. 6

Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. [Footnote 5] Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery, and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. [Footnote 6] The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [Footnote 7] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that

Page 388 U. S. 7

the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [Footnote 8] certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, [Footnote 9] and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage. [Footnote 10]

I

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1965 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E.2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id. at 90, 87 S.E.2d at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element

Page 388 U. S. 8

as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio,

Page 388 U. S. 9

Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522(1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

The State argues that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress about the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to make unconstitutional state miscegenation laws. Many of the statements alluded to by the State concern the debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which President Johnson vetoed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted over his veto. While these statements have some relevance to the intention of Congress in submitting the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to the passage of specific statutes, and not to the broader, organic purpose of a constitutional amendment. As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem that, although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem;

"[a]t best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments, and wished them to have the most limited effect."

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 347 U. S. 489 (1954). See also Strauder

Page 388 U. S. 10

v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 310 (1880). We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184 (1964).

The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 71 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 307-308 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 334-335 (1880); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (1961).

Page 388 U. S. 11

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 323 U. S. 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they

"cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 198 (STEWART, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring).

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [Footnote 11] We have consistently denied

Page 388 U. S. 12

the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190(1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

Page 388 U. S. 13

[Footnote 1]

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Footnote 2]

206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78 (1966).

[Footnote 3]

Section 257 of the Virginia Code provides:

"Marriages void without decree. -- All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process."

Va.Code Ann. § 20-57 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[Footnote 4]

Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

"Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term 'white persons.'-- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person' shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter."

Va.Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

The exception for persons with less than one-sixteenth "of the blood of the American Indian" is apparently accounted for, in the words of a tract issued by the Registrar of the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, by "the desire of all to recognize as an integral and honored part of the white race the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocathontas. . . ." Plecker, The New Family and Race Improvement, 17 Va.Health Bull., Extra No. 12, at 25-26 (New Family Series No. 5, 1925), cited in Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia's Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va.L.Rev. 1189, 1202, n. 93 (1966).

Section 1-14 of the Virginia Code provides:

"Colored persons and Indians defined. -- Every person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person, and every person not a colored person having one fourth or more of American Indian blood shall be deemed an American Indian; except that members of Indian tribes existing in this Commonwealth having one fourth or more of Indian blood and less than one sixteenth of Negro blood shall be deemed tribal Indians."

Va.Code Ann. § 1-14 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[Footnote 5]

After the initiation of this litigation, Maryland repealed its prohibitions against interracial marriage, Md.Laws 1967, c. 6, leaving Virginia and 15 other States with statutes outlawing interracial marriage: Alabama, Ala.Const., Art. 4, § 102, Ala.Code, Tit. 14, § 360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 55-104 (1947); Delaware, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 13, § 101 (1953); Florida, Fla.Const., Art. 16, § 24, Fla.Stat. § 741.11 (1965); Georgia, Ga.Code Ann. § 53-106 (1961); Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 402.020 (Supp. 1966); Louisiana, La.Rev.Stat. § 14:79 (1950); Mississippi, Miss.Const., Art. 14, § 263, Miss.Code Ann. § 459 (1956); Missouri, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 451.020 (Supp. 1966); North Carolina, N.C.Const., Art. XIV, § 8, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-181 (1953); Oklahoma, Okla.Stat., Tit. 43, § 12 (Supp. 1965); South Carolina, S.C.Const., Art. 3, § 33, S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn.Const., Art. 11, § 14, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-402 (1955); Texas, Tex.Pen.Code, Art. 492 (1952); West Virginia, W.Va.Code Ann. § 4697 (1961).

Over the past 15 years, 14 States have repealed laws outlawing interracial marriages: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

The first state court to recognize that miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause was the Supreme Court of California. Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).

[Footnote 6]

For a historical discussion of Virginia's miscegenation statutes, seeWadlington, supra, n 4.

[Footnote 7]

Va.Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[Footnote 8]

Va.Code Ann. § 20-53 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[Footnote 9]

Va.Code Ann. § 20-50 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[Footnote 10]

Va.Code Ann. § 254 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[Footnote 11]

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 379 U. S. 198 (concurring opinion). Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

I've read Loving, thanks. I stand by my statement. The Loving case arose from a race issue. The finding clearly states that marriage is a civil right.

dslsca: What your quoting: Loving v. VA: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

That quote is from another case called Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190(1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

What that case is about is that Criminals cannot be forced to get the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy by court order of the states.

THING IS YOU DONT HAVE A ****ING CLUE WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT NOR DOES YOUR ARGUMENT HOLD ANY WATER.

Loving v. VA: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."=WRONG that is Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942) they used this case as one part of there ruling in Loving v. VA.

At no point in Loving v. VA or Skinner v. Oklahoma that MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT.

Your talking about a Quote mind you, your using the WRONG CASE and taking only a fragment of the quote but if you read the whole dam Quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190(1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Again SUNSHINE NO WHERE DOES IT SAY JUST MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT, ITS SAYS The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race cannot be infringed by the State. THAT IS THE WHOLE DAM QUOTE>

U.S. Supreme Court

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson

No. 782

Argued May 6, 1942

Decided June 1, 1942

316 U.S. 535

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA

Syllabus

1. A statute of Oklahoma provides for the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy, of "habitual criminals" -- an habitual criminal being defined therein as any person who, having been convicted two or more times, in Oklahoma or in any other State, of "felonies involving moral turpitude," is thereafter convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Oklahoma for such a crime. Expressly excepted from the terms of the statute are certain offenses, including embezzlement. As applied to one who was convicted once of stealing chickens and twice of robbery, held that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 316 U. S. 537.

2. The State Supreme Court having sustained the Act, as applied to the petitioner here, without reference to a severability clause, the question whether that clause would be so applied as to remove the particular constitutional objection is one which may appropriately be left for adjudication by the state court. P. 316 U. S. 542.

189 Okla. 235, 115 P.2d 123, reversed.

Page 316 U. S. 536

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 789, to review the affirmance of a judgment in a proceeding under the Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, wherein it was ordered that the defendant (petitioner here) be made sterile.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring. Oklahoma has decreed the enforcement of its law against petitioner, overruling his claim that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Because that decision raised grave and substantial constitutional questions, we granted the petition for certiorari.

The statute involved is Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act. Okla.Stat.Ann. Tit. 57, §§ 171, et seq.; L.1935, pp. 94 et seq. That Act defines an "habitual criminal" as a person who, having been convicted two or more times for crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude," either in an Oklahoma court or in a court of any other State, is thereafter convicted of such a felony in Oklahoma and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in an Oklahoma penal institution. § 173. Machinery is provided for the institution by the Attorney General of a proceeding against such a person in the Oklahoma courts for a judgment that such person shall be rendered sexually sterile. §§ 176, 177. Notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to a jury trial are provided. §§ 177-181. The issues triable in such a proceeding are narrow and confined.

Page 316 U. S. 537

If the court or jury finds that the defendant is an "habitual criminal" and that he "may be rendered sexually sterile without detriment to his or her general health," then the court "shall render judgment to the effect that said defendant be rendered sexually sterile" (§ 182) by the operation of vasectomy in case of a male, and of salpingectomy in case of a female. § 174. Only one other provision of the Act is material here, and that is § 195, which provides that

"offenses arising out of the violation of the prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement, or political offenses, shall not come or be considered within the terms of this Act."

Petitioner was convicted in 1926 of the crime of stealing chickens, and was sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory. In 1929 he was convicted of the crime of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to the reformatory. In 1934, he was convicted again of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to the penitentiary. He was confined there in 1935 when the Act was passed. In 1936, the Attorney General instituted proceedings against him. Petitioner, in his answer, challenged the Act as unconstitutional by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. A jury trial was had. The court instructed the jury that the crimes of which petitioner had been convicted were felonies involving moral turpitude, and that the only question for the jury was whether the operation of vasectomy could be performed on petitioner without detriment to his general health. The jury found that it could be. A judgment directing that the operation of vasectomy be performed on petitioner was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by a five-to-four decision. 189 Okla. 235, 115 P.2d 123.

Several objections to the constitutionality of the Act have been pressed upon us. It is urged that the Act cannot be sustained as an exercise of the police power, in view

Page 316 U. S. 538

of the state of scientific authorities respecting inheritability of criminal traits. [Footnote 1] It is argued that due process is lacking because, under this Act, unlike the Act [Footnote 2] upheld in Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200, the defendant is given no opportunity to be heard on the issue as to whether he is the probable potential parent of socially undesirable offspring. See Davis v. Berry, 216 F. 413; Williams v. Smith, 190 Ind. 526, 131 N.E. 2. It is also suggested that the Act is penal in character, and that the sterilization provided for is cruel and unusual punishment and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Davis v. Berry, supra. Cf. State v. Felen, 70 Wash. 65, 126 P. 75; Mickle v. Henrichs, 262 F. 687. We pass those points without intimating an opinion on them, for there is a feature of the Act which clearly condemns it. That is its failure to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We do not stop to point out all of the inequalities in this Act. A few examples will suffice. In Oklahoma, grand larceny is a felony. Okla.Stats.Ann. Tit. 21, §§ 1705, 5. Larceny is grand larceny when the property taken exceeds $20 in value. Id., § 1704. Embezzlement is punishable "in the manner prescribed for feloniously stealing property of the value of that embezzled." Id., § 1462. Hence, he who embezzles property worth more than $20 is guilty of a felony. A clerk who appropriates over $20 from his employer's till (id. § 1456) and a stranger who steals the same

Page 316 U. S. 539

amount are thus both guilty of felonies. If the latter repeats his act and is convicted three times, he may be sterilized. But the clerk is not subject to the pains and penalties of the Act no matter how large his embezzlements nor how frequent his convictions. A person who enters a chicken coop and steals chickens commits a felony (id., § 1719), and he may be sterilized if he is thrice convicted. If, however, he is a bailee of the property and fraudulently appropriates it, he is an embezzler. Id., § 1455. Hence, no matter how habitual his proclivities for embezzlement are, and no matter how often his conviction, he may not be sterilized. Thus, the nature of the two crimes is intrinsically the same, and they are punishable in the same manner. Furthermore, the line between them follows close distinctions -- distinctions comparable to those highly technical ones which shaped the common law as to "trespass" or "taking." Bishop, Criminal Law (9th ed.) Vol. 2, §§ 760, 799, et seq. There may be larceny by fraud, rather than embezzlement even where the owner of the personal property delivers it to the defendant, if the latter has, at that time, "a fraudulent intention to make use of the possession as a means of converting such property to his own use, and does so convert it." Bivens v. State, 6 Okla.Cr. 521, 529, 120 P. 1033, 1036. If the fraudulent intent occurs later, and the defendant converts the property, he is guilty of embezzlement. Bivens v. State, supra; Flohr v. Territory, 14 Okla. 477, 78 P. 565. Whether a particular act is larceny by fraud or embezzlement thus turns not on the intrinsic quality of the act, but on when the felonious intent arose -- a question for the jury under appropriate instructions. Bivens v. State, supra; Riley v. State, 64 Okla.Cr. 183, 78 P.2d 712.

It was stated in Buck v. Bell, supra, that the claim that state legislation violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments." 274 U.S. p. 274 U. S. 208. Under our constitutional

Page 316 U. S. 540

system, the States, in determining the reach and scope of particular legislation, need not provide "abstract symmetry." Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 232 U. S. 144. They may mark and set apart the classes and types of problems according to the needs and as dictated or suggested by experience. See Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, and cases cited. It was in that connection that Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U. S. 499, 282 U. S. 501, stated, "We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing "degrees of evil" (Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 239 U. S. 43) by our ruling in Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141, 310 U. S. 147, that "the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." And see Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. v. Browning, 310 U. S. 362. Thus, if we had here only a question as to a State's classification of crimes, such as embezzlement or larceny, no substantial federal question would be raised. See Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189; Finley v. California, 222 U. S. 28; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, supra. For a State is not constrained in the exercise of its police power to ignore experience which marks a class of offenders or a family of offenses for special treatment. Nor is it prevented by the equal protection clause from confining "its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest." Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373, 236 U. S. 384. And see McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539. As stated in Buck v. Bell, supra, p. 274 U. S. 208,

". . . the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. "

Page 316 U. S. 541

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws. The guaranty of "equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 369. When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337. Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny, with immunity for those who are embezzlers, is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination. Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. Oklahoma's line between larceny by fraud and embezzlement is determined, as we have noted, "with reference to the time when the

Page 316 U. S. 542

fraudulent intent to convert the property to the taker's own use" arises. Riley v. State, supra, 64 Okla.Cr. at p. 189, 78 P.2d p. 715. We have not the slightest basis for inferring that that line has any significance in eugenics, nor that the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses. In terms of fines and imprisonment, the crimes of larceny and embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn. See Smith v. Wayne Probate Judge, 231 Mich. 409, 420-421, 204 N.W. 40. In Buck v. Bell, supra, the Virginia statute was upheld though it applied only to feeble-minded persons in institutions of the State. But it was pointed out that,

"so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached."

274 U.S. p. 274 U. S. 208. Here there is no such saving feature. Embezzlers are forever free. Those who steal or take in other ways are not. If such a classification were permitted, the technical common law concept of a "trespass" (Bishop, Criminal Law, 9th ed., vol. 1, §§ 566, 567) based on distinctions which are "very largely dependent upon history for explanation" (Holmes, The Common Law, p. 73) could readily become a rule of human genetics.

It is true that the Act has a broad severability clause. [Footnote 3] But we will not endeavor to determine whether its application

Page 316 U. S. 543

would solve the equal protection difficulty. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma sustained the Act without reference to the severability clause. We have therefore a situation where the Act, as construed and applied to petitioner, is allowed to perpetuate the discrimination which we have found to be fatal. Whether the severability clause would be so applied as to remove this particular constitutional objection is a question which may be more appropriately left for adjudication by the Oklahoma court. Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286. That is reemphasized here by our uncertainty as to what excision, if any, would be made as a matter of Oklahoma law. Cf. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553. It is by no means clear whether, if an excision were made, this particular constitutional difficulty might be solved by enlarging, on the one hand, or contracting, on the other (cf. Mr. Justice Brandeis dissenting, National Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 277 U. S. 508, 277 U. S. 534-535) the class of criminals who might be sterilized.

Reversed.

[Footnote 1]

Healy, The Individual Delinquent (1915), pp. 188-200; Sutherland, Criminology (1924), pp. 112-118, 621-622; Gillin, Criminology and Penology (1926), c. IX; Popenoe, Sterilization and Criminality, 53 Rep.Am.Bar Assoc. 575; Myerson et al., Eugenical Sterilization (1936), c. VIII; Landman, Human Sterilization (1932), c. IX; Summary of the Report of the American Neurological Association Committee for the Investigation of Sterilization, 1 Am.Journ.Med.Jur. 253 (1938).

[Footnote 2]

And see State v. Troutman, 50 Ida. 673, 299 P. 668; Chamberlain, Eugenics in Legislatures and Courts, 15 Am.Bar Assn.Journ. 165; Castle, The Law and Human Sterilization, 53 Rep.Am.Bar Assoc., 556, 572; 2 Bill of Rights Review 54.

[Footnote 3]

Sec.194 provides:

"If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional, or void for any other reason by any court of final jurisdiction, such fact shall not in any manner invalidate or affect any other or the remaining portions of this Act, but the same shall continue in full force and effect. The Legislature hereby declares that it would have passed this Act, and each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sub-sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional."

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, concurring:

I concur in the result, but I am not persuaded that we are aided in reaching it by recourse to the equal protection clause.

If Oklahoma may resort generally to the sterilization of criminals on the assumption that their propensities are transmissible to future generations by inheritance, I seriously doubt that the equal protection clause requires it to apply the measure to all criminals in the first instance, or to none. See Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260, 226 U. S. 271;

Page 316 U. S. 544

Keokee Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 234 U. S. 227; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 232 U. S. 144.

Moreover, if we must presume that the legislature knows -- what science has been unable to ascertain -- that the criminal tendencies of any class of habitual offenders are transmissible regardless of the varying mental characteristics of its individuals, I should suppose that we must likewise presume that the legislature, in its wisdom, knows that the criminal tendencies of some classes of offenders are more likely to be transmitted than those of others. And so I think the real question we have to consider is not one of equal protection, but whether the wholesale condemnation of a class to such an invasion of personal liberty, without opportunity to any individual to show that his is not the type of case which would justify resort to it, satisfies the demands of due process.

There are limits to the extent to which the presumption of constitutionality can be pressed, especially where the liberty of the person is concerned (see United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 304 U. S. 152, n. 4) and where the presumption is resorted to only to dispense with a procedure which the ordinary dictates of prudence would seem to demand for the protection of the individual from arbitrary action. Although petitioner here was given a hearing to ascertain whether sterilization would be detrimental to his health, he was given none to discover whether his criminal tendencies are of an inheritable type. Undoubtedly, a state may, after appropriate inquiry, constitutionally interfere with the personal liberty of the individual to prevent the transmission by inheritance of his socially injurious tendencies. Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200. But, until now, we have not been called upon to say that it may do so without giving him a hearing and opportunity to challenge the existence as to him of the only facts which could justify so drastic a measure.

Page 316 U. S. 545

Science has found, and the law has recognized, that there are certain types of mental deficiency associated with delinquency which are inheritable. But the State does not contend -- nor can there be any pretense -- that either common knowledge or experience, or scientific investigation, * has given assurance that the criminal tendencies of any class of habitual offenders are universally, or even generally, inheritable. In such circumstances, inquiry whether such is the fact in the case of any particular individual cannot rightly be dispensed with. Whether the procedure by which a statute carries its mandate into execution satisfies due process is a matter of judicial cognizance. A law which condemns, without hearing, all the individuals of a class to so harsh a measure as the present because some or even many merit condemnation is lacking in the first principles of due process. Morrison v. California, 291 U. S. 82, 291 U. S. 90, and cases cited; Taylor v. Georgia, 315 U. S. 25. And so, while the state may protect itself from the demonstrably inheritable tendencies of the individual which are injurious to society, the most elementary notions of due process would seem to require it to take appropriate steps to safeguard the liberty of the individual by affording him, before he is condemned to an irreparable injury in his person, some opportunity to show that he is without such inheritable tendencies. The state is called on to sacrifice no permissible end when it is required to reach its objective by a reasonable and just procedure adequate to safeguard rights of the individual which concededly the Constitution protects.

Page 316 U. S. 546

* See Eugenical Sterilization, A Report of the Committee of the American Neurological Association (1936), pp.150-52; Myerson, Summary of the Report, 1 American Journal of Medical Jurisprudence 253; Popenoe, Sterilization and Criminality, 53 American Bar Assn. Reports 575; Jennings, Eugenics, 5 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 617, 6221; Montagu, The Biologist Looks at Crime, 217 Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science 46.

MR JUSTICE JACKSON concurring:

I join the CHIEF JUSTICE in holding that the hearings provided are too limited in the context of the present Act to afford due process of law. I also agree with the opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS that the scheme of classification set forth in the Act denies equal protection of the law. I disagree with the opinion of each insofar as it rejects or minimizes the grounds taken by the other.

Perhaps to employ a broad and loose scheme of classification would be permissible if accompanied by the individual hearings indicated by the CHIEF JUSTICE. On the other hand, narrow classification with reference to the end to be accomplished by the Act might justify limiting individual hearings to the issue whether the individual belonged to a class so defined. Since this Act does not present these questions, I reserve judgment on them.

I also think the present plan to sterilize the individual in pursuit of a eugenic plan to eliminate from the race characteristics that are only vaguely identified and which, in our present state of knowledge, are uncertain as to transmissibility presents other constitutional questions of gravity. This Court has sustained such an experiment with respect to an imbecile, a person with definite and observable characteristics, where the condition had persisted through three generations and afforded grounds for the belief that it was transmissible, and would continue to manifest itself in generations to come. Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200.

There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of the dignity and personality and natural powers of a minority -- even those who have been guilty of what the majority define as crimes. But this Act falls down before reaching this problem, which I mention only to

Page 316 U. S. 547

avoid the implication that such a question may not exist because not discussed. On it, I would also reserve judgment.

Leatherneck: please stop posting lengthy decisions. A link is wholly sufficient. I quoted DIRECTLY from Loving v. VA (as you can CLEARLY see in your posting #1.38, in Section II where my quotation is repeated exactly). That Skinner v. OK is part of the legal reasoning behind Loving, I do not deny. All your point does is to show that the SCOTUS has recognized marriage as a basic civil right for even a longer time.

Dslsca you should look up the word: Contextomy.

Thats what you're doing, have a nice day.

Leather: What I'm having is a discussion with someone who had made up his/her mind long before the discussion started and was unwilling to have facts or arguments or evidence change that mindset.

Sorry Dslsca I have read the rulings fully and understand what they are about the the reasoning behind what they are saying. I posted the full rulings to show you your quote is a lot longer than a sentence and to show you that what your quoting is wrong.

The basic Right of marriage of what is being said is that every man has the right to get married and have KIDS. Cant have kids if the state forced you to become sterilized.

You have to remember this is 1942, back then people got married FIRST before having KIDS.

Again what you are doing is looking at a door knob on the front door and not the entire house.

Using Contextomy is a straw mans argument you know your wrong, but just will not admitted it.

The recent decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in overturning the Defense of Marriage Act agrees with me and not with you. I'd hasten to point out that the three judge panel (a Reagan appointee, a GHW Bush appointee, and a Clinton appointee, with the Bush appointee writing the decision) was both a majority Republican panel and decided the case unanimously.

dslsca: WOW the liberal court of appeals again rules there BS. Sorry I wait for the big boys to make there ruling. US SUPREME COURT TRUMPS ALL.

It's interesting. When the 9th Circuit overturned CA's ban on same sex marriage, people on the right said, "Oh, a California court. Liberal." Now that the 1st Circuit overturns DOMA, you're saying, "The liberal court of appeals." Since when are Reagan and GHW Bush appointees LIBERAL????

Chief Judge

Hon. Sandra L. Lynch

President Bill Clinton nominated Lynch to the First Circuit on January 11, 1995, to fill the seat vacated when Stephen Breyer was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States. She was confirmed by the Senate on March 17, 1995, and received her commission on the same day.

Circuit Judges

Hon. Juan R. Torruella
Torruella began his career in private practice in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1959. In 1974, President Gerald Fordnominated Torruella to serve as a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. In this court Torruella served as Chief Judge from 1982 to 1984.

In 1984, President Ronald Reaganelevated Judge Torruella to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He was confirmed by the United States Senate that year and became the first Hispanic to serve in that court. He served as Chief Judge of the court from 1994 to 2001 replacing Chief Judge Stephen Breyer who was appointed an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Torruella has consistently been an advocate of Puerto Rican rights and dissented from a 2005 ruling that Puerto Ricansare properly denied a voice in the election of the President of the United States because Puerto Rico is not a State. On the bench, Torruella is considered to be a moderate. He has ruled in favor of abortion rights, including the First Circuit court's opinion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.=Ruled in favor of a liberial aginda and was over ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Hon. Michael Boudin
He received a B.A. from Harvard University and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1964.

On May 18, 1990, President George H.W. Bushnominated Boudin to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to a seat vacated by John H. Pratt. He was confirmed by the United States Senateon August 3, 1990, and received commission on August 7. Less than two years later, on January 31, 1992, he resigned to return to Massachusetts. Two months later, on March 20, President Bush nominated Boudin to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to a seat vacated by Levin Hicks Campbell. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 21, 1992, and received commission on May 26. He served as chief judge on that court from 2001 to 2008.=Just read some of his rulings and you will see he is a left leaning LIB.

Hon. Jeffrey R. Howard
In September 2001, Howard was nominated to the U.S. 1st Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush. He was confirmed 99-0 by the U.S. Senate on April 23, 2002. He was Bush's only appointee to the First Circuit to be confirmed.

Hon. O. Rogeriee Thompson
On April 13, 2009, U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse announced that they were recommending that President Obama nominate Thompson to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to fill the seat left vacant by First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya's transition to senior status at the end of 2006

So we have 3 libs, 1 left leaning moderate and only one Conservative. HMM and you want to know how.....

If you bothered to read the decision, it was made by Lynch, Tourrella, and Boudin: two Republican appointees and one Democrat appointee. Three judge panels are the norm for such appellate decisions.

I see the First Circuit as having one Clinton appointee, one Regan appointee (first appointed to a lower court by Ford), one GHW Bush appointee, one GW Bush appointee, and one Obama appointee. That seems pretty ideologically balanced, with three Rep appointees and two Dem appointees. This (roughly) mirrors the composition of the SCOTUS where I feel certain the 1st Circuit ruling will be upheld.

Lynch: nominated by Bill Clintion read some of his rulings and you will see he is a left leaning LIB.

Tourrella: Nominated by Regan, but is a left leaning Moderate. If you bother to read up on him you would notice that.

Boudin: nominated by George H.W. Bush. read some of his rulings and you will see he is a left leaning LIB.

So let's see, would you call Justice Sotomayor a "right leaning" Moderate as she was first appointed to the federal bench by GHW Bush and is more conservative than the justice (Souter) she replaced??

Dslsca what the hell are you smoking Justice Sotomayor is the worst Progressive/Liberal Judge there is.

She is so far left that she broke the scale, If she leans right on any issues it never goes past center.

Nothing conservative about her and no she is way way way way worse then Souter. At least Scouter was center right in stead of Sotomayor who is so left if this was put up on a degree scale Scouter was a 0 to 90 degree, while Sotomayor would be a 270 to 200 degree on the scale.

By the way President Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retired Justice David Souter. Her nomination was confirmed by the Senate in August 2009 by a vote of 68–31.

GWB only nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Leath: I don't smoke anything (it'd definitely make my nose run and sinuses hurt). Sotomayor is most definitely to the right of Souter. Every Justice appointed since 1980 except Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been to the right of the Justice s/he replaced.

So Leatherneck918: As I understand your position, you are against same sex marriage. You still have not made an argument for your position other than correlating gay men and women to animals and the notion that the SCOTUS has yet to define sexual orientation as a protected class.

I'll get back to my original question: How would allowing same sex individuals to marry infringe on the civil rights of others? The fact that they can't clearly belies the fact that they, as a class, are not considered equal in the eyes of the law and do not share the same rights as you or I do.

Would it not be more beneficial to society as a whole to have some form of I.Q. test before someone can marry and reproduce? Certainly a financial means test would be practical.

Do you think that any amount of discrimination like this is going to "convert" someone from being gay? I hope you are not that naive or cynical.

Bob-429579: Sometimes in life you have to stand on the Ethical and moral high-ground even if your the last man standing. Have you ever heard of the saying Monkey see, Monkey do? Kids do, they see everything and hear everything and for the most part try everything they see or hear.

I'm sorry, but I will not exposes kids to unethical and morally wrong behaviors. Sorry, I should not have to explain to my kids why two guys or women are holding hands and kissing out in pubilic and having to tell them its the times and allowed or its wrong. Then you get well why is it wrong, if it was wrong then why are they allowed to do it. Kids pick stuff like this up every day.

Point example:

I was called into my sons school do to my 7 year old boy was kissing a 6 year old girl on the cheek in his class. Not much was done about it, except we found out he saw a teenager boy kissing on his teenage girlfriend across the street the day before.

Now what happens if my son saw two teenage boys kissing across the street and instead of a girl he kissed a boy? Is it do to he is GAY? NO its do to he is mimicking what he see's around him.

Kids do this and if your so ****ing ignorant to understand that allowing this **** to happen will expose kids to abnormal behaviors. Then your clueless........

Leatherneck:

I was just having a beer with a few of my neighbors and we started talking about bigotry and hatred. We unanimously agreed that it is something that is learned at home from the parents. If you teach your children to be closed minded, they will grow up being bigots.

No matter what you say or preach, you are not going to eradicate homosexuality. It is not right or wrong - it just is. To think that you can change somebody is foolish at the very least and completely ignorant. You should look to someplace other than a Bible for the "moral high ground".

Several states have legalized same sex marriages making it immmaterial how North Carolina feels about it or how they define it. The,"Full Faith And Credit", clause of the United States makes it mandatory for North Carolina and every other state to honor it. It's a far different world today than that in which I grew up but lets quit fooling with people's rights. It's not my cup of tea either but live and let live.

First they should explain why their sexual activities differ from normal citizens.

As though you, Timothy1Mil, would know the definition of "normal". Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - and a huge LOL!

Normal is subjective.

They can also explain why they have to pay more in taxes annually. Well over a quarter million dollars by the time their little ones grow up in contrast to couples that can legally marry, enjoy the tax benefits, not having to file separately, and savings for their kid's medical and college funds.

Would your life be different if your parents had an extra $250,000? How about that family member with cancer treatment costs?

Regardless of your religious beliefs, people work, eat, love, die, and care for their family.

Equality. Not slavery. There is nothing 'subjective' about that.

Timothy, for a gay person, homosexual activity IS normal.

I support everyone getting married if they actually believe in the institution of marriage. 50% divorce rate in this country has me believing that most people do not know what it means to be married. As such, what is the point of fighting for something that in the end means nothing to you (that goes for both sides)?

Timothy, for a gay person, homosexual activity IS normal.

For some straight people homosexuality is normal too!

First they should explain why their sexual activities differ from normal citizens.

Sexual activity is independent of marriage.

Timothy, for a gay person, homosexual activity IS normal.

I'm not gay, and I think it is just as normal as any other sexual activity.

Heterosexuals engage in anal, oral and other forms of sexual acts. Gay people are doing nothing any different than what the heterosexuals are already doing in their marriages.

Try and define "NORMAL"? You can't, because what's normal for one may not be the same for the other.

Some people eat meats, others are vegetarians. Just because one eats meats doesn't make them more normal than those that do not.

It's a real shame that we have so many ignorant people in the world that think they know what's best for all others.

Do Civil Unions REALLY deny same sex couples equal rights under the law, or is this just all about semantics?

IF civil unions deny same sex couples equal rights under the law, then the law must be changed to remove the inequity. The easiest way would be to simply pass a law that defines marriage and civil unions as synonymous. This is all that needs to be done. In fact, I would argue that the state cannot give a preferred status to marriages over civil unions because to do so shows state support of religion and is unconstitutional.

IF civil unions do not deny same sex couples equal rights under the law, and the fight is all about the term "Marriage", then this suit is a waste of time and resources and should be thrown out.

To insist that the state pass a law to force society to recognize the purely religious ceremony of marriage as having legal meaning should be unconstitutional as state support of religion. To the state, the marriage ceremony itself should not mean anything unless the appropriate civil requirements are met. This would require doing away with common law marriage, which is neither a marriage nor a civil union.

I really don't think the state can constitutionally show preference for marriage over civil unions in any way.

.

wooddragon-3782447 - To insist that the state pass a law to force society to recognize the purely religious ceremony of marriage as having legal meaning should be unconstitutional as state support of religion.

Marriage is a secular legal contract. What your religious cult calls its rituals is irrelevant.

I've since found this information of the differences between marriages and civil unions. I get it now.

"What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make thetwo institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability: Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions

Ending a Civil Union:If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects the civil union.

Federal Benefits:According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for afamily member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs likeMedicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil uniondon’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all, including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do

@Timothy: Why? Why should they have to explain anything? Why is it anyone's business what they do? It certainly isn't any business of yours nor is it any business of theirs to make you explain your preferences.

You forgot the part about how it will lead to people marrying their dog or their toaster.

Or the latest one - "what if a man wants to marry several women" - oh, sorry that was from a Romney article

Mike VL Yes Mike keep on topic ;).

romanm I always wondered why people against marriage equality were so worried about people marrying toasters or their own sisters. They have some interesting thoughts going on in their heads!

Can a toaster or-

Nevermind; Krestov, let's discuss solutions in better news stories.

Krestov - People for marriage equality who don't like what the religious people say will insult their religion and their god spouting they want equality yet being disrespectful of the religious peoples religion.

Should the religious views of those who opposed mixed-race marriage been treated with respect, or should they simply have been denounced as racist?

I respect any religion that allows anyone to be a priest as long as their convictions are true (VERY FEW) who embrace equality for all people currently very few religions do this. I have NO respect for those who use their religion to spew hatred. I honestly feel the entire catholic church as well as most baptist churches should be labeled hate groups and lose their tax exempt status because they do not allow women to be priests which means they discriminate against people which means they are not real religions.

Equality.

No Randy I can not name one RIGHT.

I can name 1,138 federal rights that these couples are denied because their marriage is not recognized equally.

To Randy""""

The right to be treated as a fellow human being...

The GAO has identified 1138 rights that accorded to married couples as opposed to nonmarried ones.

This does not include one of the most important rights of all; to be treated as next of kin so that when your spouse is dying, you can visit him or her in the hospital, even if the spouses' family disapproves of gays.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

Amunaka is correct! Who else would people think it is all right to say or write vicious ugly comments about? Only gay people. Oh, they used to do this to women, that has been almost stopped. We now have sexual harassment laws in the workplace thankfully! They used to tear down people of other nationalities. They used to tear down the black population. The last group the low-life of our population think they can treat less than human and less than respectfully, are gay people. Not OK! Even comedians do it all the time. It is disgraceful!

To...All""""

Exactly ..who else can you get away with discriminating against today ...legally

There is the perception that homosexuals are a socially acceptable target. Repeatedly, when young people are asked, they will justify and defend targeting gay people as . . . There's a belief nowadays that it's not so cool to assault racial minorities. It's not so cool to assault women, or Jews. But assaulting gays is actually something humorous to a lot of young people. It's probably the last socially acceptable group to assault. Part of it is related to the fact that discrimination against gays is still legalized and encoded. That sends a message to young people that, if gays don't have equal rights in employment, housing, child custody, the military, or marriage, then there's something wrong with them, and nobody's going to mind if we have some fun at their expense. . . .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/franklin.html

Well said! Precisely!

Randy Thomas-4213467 - Name me one RIGHT that these people are denied that normal married couples have!

The right to be exempt from federal inheritance tax.

Similarly, the right to file federal taxes jointly.

More generally, the right to equal protection of the law.

They're denied the right to marry. What more do you require? In 1967, the US Supreme Court in a unanimous decision declared that marriage is a basic civil right.

Simply banning gay marriage denies gay people a civil right. It's quite simple. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm not sure where the confusion lies here. You can take whatever pseudo-religious "moral" stance you want -- that's your right, but the legality of banning same-sex marriage is pretty clear: It's illegal and it's unconstitutional. That's why every court that's heard a case has favored the support of SSM.

I was once very ambivalent about SSM. Didn't affect me, so I didn't care much one way or the other, though I thought the notion seemed a bit odd. Much like our president, though, my views have evolved and now I am a 100% full supporter. To deny gay Americans the right to marry is unconstitutional, un-American, and plain wrong. Gay marriage is going to be legal nationwide a lot sooner than I ever thought, and largely because of the increasingly shrill posturing of same-sex marriage opponents.

Thinkforyourself-2427469 - Gay marriage is going to be legal nationwide a lot sooner than I ever thought, and largely because of the increasingly shrill posturing of same-sex marriage opponents.

Agreed. I don't think the dimwits even realize how much they've hurt their own cause, both with their vile statements and the bigoted laws they've passed. All of that hate will be proof to a court that sexual orientation should be a suspect class.

Name me one RIGHT that these people are denied that normal married couples have!

The right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing!

Case closed

Nothing argued above is a RIGHT!

I could care less if you are a lesbian, a homosexual, or a bi-sexual. If you want to be married, just present yourself as a married couple. There is not one LAW, nor one RIGHT, that is exempt from protection if you are gay!

Fuzzy - A lot of gays "advertise it"? What? No more hiding, Fuzzy! Gay people deserve the same respect as human beings and citizens that the rest of us do.

Don't say nice things and then turn your anger on them. They don't advertise it any more than you advertise your heterosexual self. A man and woman can walk and hold hands. Then, if a gay couple holds hands they are subjected to: "advertising it" or "pushing it down our throats" as some people say.

Either go with equality or don't. Your "semi'openmindedness" doesn't really help our gay citizens.

I said what I had to say. I meant what I say. It's not the way you want it. Too damn bad. I don't have to be politically correct, which has become a bunch of BS in America. You want to read more into what I wrote, that's your problem. I see why the gays and Lesbians have a problem getting what they want or expect but, with the approach you are taking, you aren't going to go far!

It is not natural and is against nature.

Considering that homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species in nature, it seems more natural than you think.

It defies all that mankind is,

Human sexuality includes homosexuality, as well as heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality.

Just don't be so judgemental and stay open minded.

Yet you say that homosexuality is "not natural and is against nature. It defies all that mankind is." That doesn't sound open minded to me.

It's not hurting you as long as they keep their business to themselves and not advertise it like a LOT of gays and Lesbians do.

How are they "advertising" it? Besides, advertising doesn't harm anyone either.

@Fuzzy

"It's not hurting you as long as they keep their business to themselves and not advertise it like a LOT of gays and Lesbians do."

It's not hurting me regardless. There is something to be learned by AllPeople's post, instead of getting defensive like you just did. Stop thinking that it threatens you if it's not hidden.

And what about us heterosexuals that have the freedom to advertise as much as we please?

FUZZY:

I personally love women too much to go the opposite way. It is not natural and is against nature.

Explain how it goes against nature? If you are trying to make a point in your comment then I suggest you stick around and not get offended when people question you.

It defies all that mankind is, but, if 2 people of the same sex love each other, and want to become a couple, who am I to say otherwise. It is their decision.

Wouldn't that make it normal, or natural for them? It's ok to have several forms of "normality" wouldn't you agree?

I have an ex brother n law, that is gay.He is a terrific guy and you would never know hes gay unless he told you. He and his lover, have been together for approximately 40 years. They are good for each other and I truly respect them as people. I have been married 3 times, so I sure am not going to say its wrong for them. Their sexual preference is theirs.

I think they would feel insulted if you say they are good for each other, your ex-brother in law is a terrific guy...and yet what they are doing isn't natural or normal (according to you).

They don't try to push their ways onto me and like wise.

Sorry, but you did just that in your first sentence! You made it clear that you are straight...why does that matter? You pushed your belief of "not being natural or normal" too. Seriously, has a gay man ever come up to you and criticised you for being straight?

Respect is what all of us should look for first. Just don't be so judgemental and stay open minded. It's not hurting you as long as they keep their business to themselves and not advertise it like a LOT of gays and Lesbians do.

To be honest, straight people advertise more than gays and lesbians do, just watch a Beer commercial.

There are too many more important things to worry about, like our country going to HE**, and becoming a communist, 3rd world country. Vote ABO in November, because he says what he doesn't mean. He was forced into a corner by BIDEN!

I'm not getting into a political debate with you on this one! But you do need to explain what was said above.

Why are we required to live by your Bible or any other groups' book? This is the United States and was not formed specifically for Christians nor any other religious group. This is not a fundamentalist society, but, for some reason, idiot religious people are forcing their beliefs upon our rights as HUMANS (NOT CHRISTIANS!!!) to exist and follow our dreams.

Get over it and realize what country you live in!

Then why did you read this article?

Also: bible = myth we will grow out of eventually

Too bad that the bible is a work of fiction.

The bible was written by mankind! Mankind is not perfect and constantly making mistakes, every day. Accept things you can't change. People need to worry about their problems and life, and stop getting into other peoples business. You will be happier!

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Obama has divided church and state. He doesn't care what churches want or have to say. His is the last and only word in his world.

Church and state are SUPPOSED to be divided.

Fuzzy, I would rather that than any religious right wing republican nut job who thinks they can tell everyone what to do based upon a book written by men just like the taliban and muslim extremists.

In the Old Testament, marriage was often between one man and several women. Doesn't mean I want to legalize polygamy. US law is not based on the Bible, anyway, so the point is moot.

People put too much into their church. They can't or won't think on their own, and want the priest, minister , whomever, to tell them what to do. In Judaism, a Rabbi is a teacher. He makes you think and you come up with an answer. He doesn't for the most part tell you what to do. A good, proper Rabbi, makes you work for the answer. He drags it out of you. We all have minds and freedoms. Judaism teaches us to expand our minds and think for our self. The more we learn and educate our self, is the same thing as prayer. We are bettering our self as a human being, a person, a friend.

Sandy, What about a racist, hateful, communist, radial, etc., etc. left wingnut like Al Sharpton? He is ok in your book then? You are a liberal I gather?

Fuzzy - Our president and our country is supposed to have church and state separated. The reason? So that NO religion whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or whatever will ever "rule" our country. Religious rules are for each person's "religion" or club. They are not rules for our country. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Otherwise, we would be in a mess like Afghanistan - people killing people and beheading people because they don't "believe in the same things."

As for Al Sharpton, he is all those things you mentioned - to YOU! He has a right to express himself - right or wrong. YOU have the right to express yourself - right or wrong! I have the right to express myself - right or wrong!

What NONE of us has a right to do is keep other American citizens from having equal rights, whether we agree with them or not! As long as they are law-abiding, good citizens, we have no right to take away their equal rights.

Well said APR!!

Damien-1936345 - Stop, Stop you are making me sick. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.

So you want the state to enforce your sharia laws on everybody, even those who aren't members of your cult?

Damien, there are lots of people in this world who don't give a flying fu*k what your bible says.

Obama has divided church and state. He doesn't care what churches want or have to say

Good. He shouldn't care what chuches have to say. At least until the GOP gets it way, we're not a theocracy.

The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not everyone follows or believes in your bible, nor does it make our laws!

To DRK-1183578. Why shouldn't a man have two or more wives or any number of combinations be allowed if all parties are willing and are consenting adults who have not been coerced into such a marriage agreement? One could argue that a polyamorous heterosexual marriage makes at least as much sense as a homosexual marriage.

People always say gay marriage will be a slippery slope, but as long as the parties involved are all competent human beings of legal age why should anyone else give a damn what they do. The right wing argument that people will be marrying children, corpses, toasters, blow up dolls, animals, etc is totally ludicrous.

The tax system however, would actually become totally ludicrous.

I would hate to see the gays say "up yours buddy, we got ours!" when a MMF or FMF menage a trois who truly love each other want to tie the knot.

Nah, polygamy would be not be indicated just because gay marriage is. Not only is there plenty of evidence with existing polygamists that it is bad for society -- young girls being coerced into it, young men being forced from their communities because there is no place for all the surplus guys when the old powerful men have all the wives -- but from a contractual standpoint, what a mess it would be.

And I don't see why gay marriage would lead to it. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Not only the tax system, either. Imagine if Terry Schiavo had had two husbands and they couldn't agree on whether or not to pull the plug. The whole point of government being involved in marriages at all, surely, is that two cohabiting people have this contract that spells out certain things so people don't have to go to court about them. Polygamy is just not workable. And yes, I know there are countries that have it, such as Saudi Arabia, but in those countries, women have fewer rights than men to start with, and the men of the extended family make the kinds of decisions that wives would make in the US....Maybe that's the only way such a system can work. Not a fan of this kind of society.

And I don't see that legalizing gay marriage would lead to polygamy. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Not just a "word", it is about equal civil rights. A civil union does not grant all the rights that a marriage does.

That is why the "legal contract" issued by all states needs to be termed exactly what it is, and all 1400+ laws referencing "marriage" need to be amended to read likewise. The proper term for that "license" issued by each state should be "civil union" because that is exactly what that license is granting...a CIVIL union of two people.

anti-trust - So, your point is? That marriage should not exist and all should have civil unions? Or are you simply suggesting that gay people should have civil unions and less rights than heterosexuals?

What exactly is your point?

anti-trust proponent - The proper term for that "license" issued by each state should be "civil union" because that is exactly what that license is granting...a CIVIL union of two people.

Marriage is the civil legal contract. Marriage is the proper term, especially since it's the only term which is recognized universally across jurisdictions - state, federal and international.

Holy matrimony is the optional and irrelevant religious rite.

But since "marriage" is a term the "christian" churches are trying to claim is their own and is only available to one man/one woman, that is why the civil license should read exactly what it is...a civil license for the union of TWO PERSONS (without consideration of sexual orientation). If people want to continue to use the word "marriage" instead of "union" for the legal contract, fine. But it has to be available to ALL citizens of this country, not just those the religious right wants to grant the right to. And all benefits of that right have to be likewise made available to ALL citizens desiring to enter into a commitment of union through a legal license. That is my point, and has been my point in this battle for over twenty years. Get rid of the controversy by declaring ALL civil licenses for "marriage" to be "civil unions" and revise all 1400+ laws accordingly.

Christian churches don't own the word "marriage". Actually, since they're fond of invoking the bible to justify their "ownership", we should let them "own" the word as it appears in the original language. They certainly don't have a claim on the English language word.

But, I see your point. Just label everything a civil union (legally) and let "marriage" be what anyone wants it to be. Good idea, but the Christo-Taliban will never go for it. They're not trying to "protect" marriage, they're trying to deny gays their rights. They have no interest in compromise, or they wouldn't have banned civil unions in the recent NC vote.

Barry-NJ - But, I see your point. Just label everything a civil union (legally) and let "marriage" be what anyone wants it to be. Good idea, but the Christo-Taliban will never go for it. They're not trying to "protect" marriage, they're trying to deny gays their rights.

In fact the NOM hate group and the Catholic & Mormon churches opposed civil unions in Illinois. Their purpose is to harm gays.

anti-trust proponent - But since "marriage" is a term the "christian" churches are trying to claim is their own and is only available to one man/one woman, that is why the civil license should read exactly what it is...a civil license for the union of TWO PERSONS (without consideration of sexual orientation).

That's not the way all Christian churches view it, maybe not even most since there are a lot of churches which recognize same-sex marriage and perform religious weddings for gays. What you're proposing is that the government adopt the verbiage bigoted churches would prefer, and disfavor the enlightened churches.

Moreover what you're proposing would disadvantage all currently married persons, since their new "civil unions" would receive little or no recognition when they travel overseas.

I understand you're trying to separate the legal contract from the religious ritual, but in reality they already are completely separate - marriage is just a legal contract. It's only the dumb bigots who confuse them, and want the state to enforce their peculiar sharia laws.

Absolutely right, Unidentified! This will be the beginning of where this should have been resolved in the first place - in our courts. The Constitution will uphold equal rights for American citizens. This issue should never have been put up for a vote, for vicious discriminatory people to even have the opportunity to debate. American laws will not and should not allow discrimination of any group in our country.

The same thing happened when fighting for black civil rights. Our government even had to have our troops escort black children into schools and colleges. Unbelievable that these children were afraid for their lives! Same thing is happening here. None of our decent citizens should be living in hiding or in fear!

AnUnidentifiedMale - It's all about freedom and liberty. Get the government out of marriage and let people marry whomever they want.

Since marriage involves legal rights and obligations, the government will always be involved - if only to be sure that only people who can give legal consent are entering the contract.

If God REALLY talked to those people who claim God talks to them, He would no doubt say "STFU"

"Why do people always think they know what God thinks"

Because God is created as a justification for what people already think anyway.

Roberta, you really need to get your head out of the gutter...for someone who is talking about sanctity of marriage, morality and God, you really have a very vivid imagination about sex...which you're not supposed to talk about but to only have sex when you want to eject another baby you can't take care of. Its all about sex with people like you and your whole tirade illustrates just how obsessed you and your ilk are regarding the sexual acts subsumed within sexual orientation.

What we don't need are laws of morality and ethics that only reflect your views. As far as I'm concerned your views are morally bankrupt...which law is killing people on the other side of the world? Why do you believe it is our responsibility to police the rest of the world? We have enough death at the hands of murderers and starvation in our own country...perhaps we should pass a law that makes it a crime to waste food...after all, starvation is a huge cause of human suffering and death in the world...why don't we start here and make it a crime to waste food...isn't wasting food immoral? In a world of limited resources, does it not rob another human mouth of much needed sustenance? Where is your morality now? We don't need to meddle in anybody else's business..

Uhm...we did pass laws outlawing blacks marrying whites and those laws were overturned...are you really that ignorant of American history?

Roberta, marriage was NOT a christian concept! The first marriage laws were around 700-750 years BEFORE christianity was even born in the Code of Hammurabi. The idea that the christian god brought marriage into existence is false.

WOW - what a persuasive, loving and intelligent argument for supersitious religious belief.

You're making me want to become a Christian - only with Jeebus' help will I be able to acheive that kind of foul and obscene vitriol.

Religious people make me tired: always thinking that they have the right answers to everything because it is in their bible or quran or whatever.

Marriage is NOT a STATUS - it is a state of union, by a man and a woman, a union sanctified by God.

God has nothing to do with marriage. The only thing that matters is that marriage license issued by the state.

Marriage is NOT a STATUS - it is a state of union, by a man and a woman, a union sanctified by God.

Marriage is a "basic civil right," and has been a civil instution long before your god or religion became involved. As such, your god is neither necessary or relevant to marriage and has no say in our laws, especially our marriage laws.

Anything else is man made, and of course, man is So Much Smarter than his SPIRIT

Since about 50% of your "god sanctified marriages" end in divorce, I'd say man's attempt couldn't be worse.

HE WILL NEVER COME UP WITH THE WHOLE and 2 men SCREWING each other because they feel the need to ejaculate in someone's mouth or rectum or what ever the females do

You do realizes heterosexual coupls do the same thing too, right?

shoving un-godly things into every orifice AND CALLING THAT LOVE have no clue of the meaning, unless they have a spiritual base.

What a boring sex life you must have. However people define love in their relationship is their perogative and business.

If they are spiritual homosexuals, then they need to CREATE THEIR OWN CHURCH and marry themselve....

Some churches already perform gay ceremonies.

but WE Do Not NEED LAWS telling us what is right morally or ethically right! -

And we do not and cannot have laws based on your god/religion or what you think is "morally right." Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated!

we did not pass laws when blacks married whites.

There were laws against that once, until the SCOTUS struck them down.

@Roberta

I'm sorry for you. I can tell by your post that you were probably raised in such a way that was excessively restrictive and overbearing. You should focus your anger on that instead of gays and lesbians.

Um Roberta -- you know that straight married couples have oral and anal ex too, right? Why should gays have all the fun ;-)

And their certainly were laws against black people marrying white people, until the Supreme Court struck them down with Loving v. Virginia. while living in Virginia, Mr. and Mrs. Loving were actually torn out of their bed while they were sleeping and arrested because Mrs. Loving was black and Mr. Loving was white. When Mrs. Loving pointed to the marriage certificate (from the District of Columbia) over their bed, they were arrested for being married inter-racially. You should read up on your history a little, Roberta.

And your rights should be denied to you until you learn what the Constitution grants to ALL citizens of this country, not just to bullies like you. Sexual activities of you heterosexuals are just as much a life of diseases and death as those of homosexuals. My "choice" of sexual activities does NOT grant you the right to take away my civil rights. And homosexuality is NOT a choice, any more that heterosexuality is.

Stop trying to make me except you. Maybe I should sue your idiot ass for pushing your idiot ideas on me and my family.

No one cares if you accept them or not. Go right on hating. It must be terrible to live with such anger and hatred day-after-day.

Marrage is between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

Merely your opinion.

damn god did not make ADAM AND STEVE he MADE ADAM AND EVE

That's nice. Prove it! BTW, did you just take the lord's name in vain? Your god might be ticked off at that.

Stop trying to make me except you.

It's "accept," not except. Besides, your acceptance is neither necessary or required. Onlt the government under the law is!

Maybe I should sue your idiot ass for pushing your idiot ideas on me and my family.

Go ahead and try. You'll be laughed right out of court. Besides, how is anything being pushed on you?

The "Adam and Steve" crap is getting old.
God most certainly DID create Adam and Steve else why would they be here?

Exactly right. You wouldn't think the concept of equal protection of the law would be a complicated one, but apparently it is for some - especially conservatives in the south.

especially conservatives in the south.

This is in Illinois, lets give the bigots up north their due this time and leave the south out of it. Or are you just trolling for fun?

No part of the country is immune from bigotry, it just was more institutionalized and therefore more engrained in the south.

In fact it's the southern states which have uniformly banned all legal recognition for gays - marriage, civil unions, DPs etc are all prohibited in the south. Just like mixed-race marriage once was.

Please seek psychological help and leave our society alone. You are selfish and sick. Do not blame us for your bad choices.

Paul .. how is she "sick"? And, what makes you think being gay is a choice? When did you choose to be straight? And why? Let's hear your thought process.

Burrr wrote "All of my gay friends have hetero parents."

This is function of numbers. From their HIV infection statististics, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that the homosexual population is ~1%. Though, of course, the # of homosexuals that procreate with a member of the opposite sexual attraction is nearly zero. This is why none of your gay friends have gay parents.

Pefectly said Burrr!

Explain how two same sex individuals raising a child together is "the worst possible environment". How is that worse than the parents of a child who gets molested and tortured daily?

Did you really mean to say that you have to be biologically related to a child in order to be its loving parent? Because, wow. Way to insult all adoptive parents.

And I'd like a cite on how a lesbian couple are the worst possible environment for kids. Because that's not what I've read at all.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

Man is made in God's image. Homosexuals are wickedness that are made in the mind of their father's wickedness which was cast down from heaven. One day they will have to answer for their choices here on earth, but that does not mean I or anyone else has to condone it. Homosexuality is a choice, and it is a very wicked one.

jm, Evidence points to sexual orientation as being innate and not a choice for the vast majority of people. We evolved from earlier primates, the evidence for it is nearly insurmountable. Reconcile that however you want with your belief that god made us, but realize that the bible, at most, should be read as an allegory.

jm
If homosexuals will have to answer some day for their choices here on earth, then why are YOU condemning them?
You are not the one they will supposedly have to "answer to".

Unfortunately, most church goers. Who argue in such places, take from the bible what they see fit. Not mentioning anything from the bible, which would in all ways go against their ways.

God does not show partiality or favoritism(Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9)

If God is impartial and loves us with impartiality, then we need to love others with that same high standard. (John 13:34)

There is only one race—the human race. Caucasians, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, and Jews are not different races. Rather, they are different ethnicities of the human race. All human beings have the same physical characteristics (with minor variations, of course). More importantly, all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27)

Do stop adding what only you see is right to add.

Jesus has been coming soon for about 1000yrs now. And the world has been coming to an end for about the 1500'th time! But I guess if you keep announcing them someone eventually will get it right (except for the Jesus part). :)

Wexy: let me correct you: Jesus has been "coming soon" since he left the first time. He clearly states that some listening to him then wouldn't die before the end of the world. ALL the early Christians thought they would see the end times.

DSLSCA: You didn't correct anything actually. But there's no need, you obviously failed at understanding that my comment was full of snark.

I see! I'm absolutely with you on not using the Bible as the laws of our contemporary secular republic, but I do like to try to get descriptions of what's in it correct.

I agree with you. People often mis-quote the bible to cater to their needs or beliefs. I was just responding to the comment is all. The Bible has no place in laws or US citizens rights.

Removing the "one nation under god" is fine by me... it was only added in the 1950's anyway. Our founding fathers were a mix of christians, deists and atheists. They founded this nation on god so much so that they put the establishment clause as the first amendment in the constitution.

People like you are either incredibly ignorant to our history, or delusional in order to protect your fragile world view.

We starting a petition? I second removing "one nation under god" hehe.

And for the last time people. The biggest argument people have to keep everyone from having equal rights is the Bible. The Bible has NOTHING to do with law or marriage. As a very smart poster put above, it is not Holy Matrimony!!!! Marriage is LEGAL, not RELIGIOUS.

So if God's standards should have no influence on American laws then I guess we should'nt be "One Nation Under God" any more

We were never "One nation under god." That was added in the 1950's due to the Communist threat and is unconstitutional at its core!

we should take all of the Founding Fathers off of our money

Why?

and re-name our country because that is what this country was founded on.

Our country was founded on the Constitution, and not on god or any religious ideology. I defy you to prove otherwise!

I second removing "one nation under god" hehe.

I third! :)

One nation under god was only added in the 1950s and should be taken out I'd love to see in god we trust off of our money.

You do realize gay marriage is legal in Canada, right?

Ok, that actually did make me laugh out loud ;-)