Wow. Activist judges are only those who decide a case in any way you disagree with right?

If they were activists in 'the right way' you wouldn't have a problem.

Gee - so enlightened.

I sincerely doubt they are out to change society. Their job is to interpret the constitution as best they can.

Part of the reason to vote in the Presidential elections

Far from "activists", this is a decision that has needed to be made for some time. Same sex marriage in no way infringes on the rights of hetero couples.

I agree that DOMA is unconstitutional. Now take it to the Supremes so we can be done with this.

Uh, actually you're wrong Thor. The role of federal judges is not just to "back the law" but also to strike down any federal laws that may be "passed" but are unconstitutional. Good for the judge. The fact is we don't need to legalize gay marriage, we just need to get the government out of it all together. If a state wants to define marriage that's an issue for the people of the state but it is NOT the job of the federal government.

By 'activist judges' you mean the ones that actually interpret the Constitution and don't allow primal hatreds to cloud their judgments?

There is no such thing as "activist judges". By using that term, you claim judges pull these rulings out of their asses. The judges have a JOB to do. They have to rule one way or the other per the arguments presented to them. After studying the case, they make a decision based on law and the constitution. Just because they rule in the direction that displeases you, that makes them "activists"? Think again.

So people who stand up for equal rights are called "activists," as if that's a bad thing? I guess you would call women who fought for the right to vote in the 1920's "activists," as well as blacks who marched for their civil rights in the 60's. To me, that's a GREAT thing!

In cases of civil rights, these "activist" judges were accurately applying the U.S. Constitution -- or is that too radical for you?

Discrimination against people who are not like us is going out of style, so you can either stick to your racist, homophobic insecurities and look like an ignorant jerk or you can become accepting of different people and join the human race.

Face it, if you left your small group of friends and neighbors, EVERYBODY would look different to you - whether it's race, religion, customs, sexual preference, disabilities, or place of origin. We all have to live together peacefully (and that means in a just, fair society) and productively for the world to prosper.

my heart tells me im a homophobe (sorry if i offend anyone but it is my southern baptist updringing) but by head tells me that all the discriminatory laws are wrong (not really sorry if i offend anyone including myself). everyone needs to go back to 3rd grade civics again. the congress makes the laws, the supreme court is supposed to interpret what the laws mean, and the president is supposed to enforce the laws. the courts should not tell congress what laws to pass and neither bush nor obama should pick and choose which laws to enforce. frankly, only congress should ba able to declare war as well. our whole govt has been corrupted by $$$ and the likes of citizens united- FUBAR.

This may remove impediments to receiving federal benefits, but states can still discriminate.

The fact is we don't need to legalize gay marriage, we just need to get the government out of it all together. If a state wants to define marriage that's an issue for the people of the state but it is NOT the job of the federal government.

Except that the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, and while the states can regulate marriage up to a point, they CANNOT discriminate in those regulations.

Why are you so intent on having the Government tell people who they can and cannot marry? What does it matter to YOU? Why is it your business? I don't think the government needs to be involved at any but the most basic legal levels when it comes to people getting married. Legal age and by mutual consent of all parties about to be within the marriage. Leave it there and let people figure it out for themselves.

This only shows your total lack of understanding of the separation of powers in the Constitution. The judiciary is bound not only to defend the law but to interpret its actual "lawfulness". If we didn't have an independent judiciary, the Legislative branch could pass any law--say one making people with blue eyes getting their left hands lopped off--and we'd just have to follow it, blindly, because it's the law.

Every judge, by definition, should be "activist" as you seem to envision it: i.e. they look at a law and say "This law isn't legal, by virtue of our constitution" or "this law is totally in line with our Constitution." Wake up, man.

Actually judges are human and therefore they will let their personal views get in the way, the supreme court has been accused by the left of that for several years now, so what's up with that? Certain fed districts are well known for ruling in the liberal view or in the conservative view.

I could care less which way this goes...just sayin

this decision is right on point; the Supreme court will rule within 4 weeks on the real issue; which is, " a valid marriage will be defined by State law ", they have already all but said that in their last decision involving the 10th amendment; Mass. ,allows same sex Marriage, therefore benefits cannot be denied under Mass. law. There are now 33 states that do not recognize same sex marriage, therefore in those states benefits would be denied.

Like Judges that decide corporations are people?

or

Judges that think that there should be a way to anonymously buy an election?

or

Judges that decide how a state determines the winner of it's own election?

that kind of activism?

Toldja y'all this was next...

@Bill:

The Supreme Court can also find a law or part of it unconstitutional, and thus strike it off the books. This happened many times.

@Mark: careful, you're confusing the lemmings with your pesky insight; they'll never make it to the cliff if you keep doing that.

Lee, obviously my tax dollars that helped pay for your education, were sadly wasted!

Why are sigle people discriminated against in this country??? I choose to be single but I'm taxed at twice the rate as "couples".

Something stinks here........

Well, crap. Now Arizona is going to have to do something stupid about this.

And then California is going to have to legalize cocaine.

Its going to be a festival of dumb.

All I have to say is I think its a good day for the gay community.

Gays pay for people's marriage benefits through taxes...

recieve none...ontop of that they dont have kids

if anything homosexuals get FAR LESS out of thier tax dollars then ANYONE

The religion of SELF RIGHTEOUNESS is out to judge people like gods...

Do you still listen to your parent as an adult? then why the hell are people coming together to vote on other peoples rights?

While we're at it, lets go back and vote for woman's right, civil rights and slavery...

too many dumb bimbos

GET OFFA UR HIGH HORSE!

The problem that the anti-gay marriage crowd faces is arguing their case WITHOUT using religion.

Separation of Church and State exists in this country, and we are a secular nation... that means that religion is NOT a valid reason to pass laws. You CAN NOT use religion to discriminate against ANY group.

So, those opposed to gay marriage must argue their case WITHOUT the use of religion... and THAT is where they fall short. Without the ability to use a religious argument, they have no ground to stand on. This is why so many Republicans want to change this country into a theocracy, similar to Iran and Iraq... so that they can use religion to define laws.

If your goal is to discriminate against a specific group of people... deny them rights... you MUST provide a strong, legal argument that shows the overall societal benefit of this discrimination. As it stands, the right has failed to show any measurable, scientific and factual benefit to continuing this discrimination.

Lee-2124113 - 16th amendment to the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You're welcome.

"Activist judges need to be taken out of the workforce."

You need look no further than the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wow. Activist judges are only those who decide a case in any way you disagree with right?

No. Activist judges are judges that can be defined as either liberal or conservative. Their job is to interpret law without bias. A judges job shouldn't be about right or wrong based on their personal views. It should be based on the law as it is written, and only that.

The fact that our supreme court is so clearly divided on party lines points to what an absolute failure it is.

And the fact that our congress sucks so bad at making laws that a liberal judge and a conservative judge interpret them differently points to what a failure our congress is.

Our government was designed to have checks and balances. A legislative, executive, and judicial branch. That has completely gone down the toilet. We have liberals and conservatives, and shades of gray between running the three branches. Our government depends on whether liberals or conservatives are in power. The three branches are just extensions of the republican and democrat parties.

All of the federal judges can clearly be said to be either conservative or liberal. And they should all be replaced.

... well, that was kind of an off topic rant... oops.

Why aren't civil unions with the same benefits as a true married couple enough for gays?. Marriage is defined based on thousands of years of history as between a MAN and a WOMAN. There is no discrimination against gays to not allow two people of the same sex the opportunity to marry each other. Up until gays became more and more emboldened, this was never even an issue. Tradition should not be trumped by a changing societies mores. Yes, gays should be treated like everyone else. Gays should have the right to be with who they want and to have the same benefits afforded others. Marriage however is between a man and a woman and will be the only ceremonies recognized as such by those not hijacked by the PC universe. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory, it is just continuing traditions handed down for eons.

This decision was inevitable. Another example of the universal truth Dr King pointed to when he said, “The moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice."

Social consciousness has a relentless evolution that sometimes seems almost independent of the species that harbors it. And it operates at the largest scale, across centuries and diverse cultures, always plodding seemingly forward toward some teleological goal of perfect social harmony. It cannot be resisted: The success of US civil rights movement of blacks taken against the backdrop of the deep commitment and historical momentum of the South to preserve its biases at all costs, were no match for the impetus of social change required or demanded by this "thing" I am calling social consciousness.

Civil rights for gays is no different, the demand for it is relentless and irresistible. It's just a matter of time.

Dom:

Marriage is defined based on thousands of years of history as between a MAN and a WOMAN.

No it hasn't. Marriage used to be used as a business contract to bring families together for business reasons. Fathers used to be able to give their daughters away against their will (and still do in some countries). Men used to be able to marry multiple women (and still do in some countries).

Marriage has not been defined for thousands of years as between a man and a woman. Maybe that's how you see it now, but that's not how it's always been.

Dom-462174 - Why aren't civil unions with the same benefits as a true married couple enough for gays?

Why aren't separate drinking fountains enough for blacks? Why do they have to drink from the whites-only fountain?

Fooz

Good try but no cigar.

The 16th amendment was directed at CORPORATIONS AND BANKS.

Not CITIZENS.

You're welcome.

The 16th amendment was directed at CORPORATIONS AND BANKS.

It doesn't matter who the law was directed at if it was worded in a way to to limit it to that thing.

The 14th amendment was written to give citizenship to freed slaves, and now it's used to give the children of illegal imigrants citizenship.

I wished normal people could have special attention just once in a while..

lusitania - two things, when exactly did you wished that, and normal people don't really need special attention now, do they?

Tony D-

Theres nothing stopping a man and woman from doing the same thing right now.

So... your point is?

these comments are funny:

ErinNJ

"The fact is we don't need to legalize gay marriage, we just need to get the government out of it all together."

Dennis-816242

"Why are you so intent on having the Government tell people who they can and cannot marry? What does it matter to YOU? Why is it your business? I don't think the government needs to be involved"

- you don't want the government involved, but you sure would like to have those government benefits. if you guys actually read the article, you would find that this is the subject. not whether the gov is saying you can or can't marry, rather if these couples would be entitled to "government" provided benefits as they do to typical married couples (tax benefits and deductions, claiming dependants etc.).

LOL its like the medicare people protesting the government to stay out of their medicare, HAHA a bit ironic isn't it ?

"hey government I want the benifits but stay out of it" HAHA

on another note, this will not be abused at all will it... <-- sarcasm

I love how activist judges deciding that corporations are people isn't a problem but deciding gays can marry is a problem. Activist judges have also decided that developers can seize private land to build shopping centers on, where was the outrage over that?

@AG-99,

You said: "This may remove impediments to receiving federal benefits, but states can still discriminate."

However, you. along with the author of the article missed the very key point. The ruling will, if upheld, allow same-sex couples to file joint income tax returns. Virtually every state with a state income tax uses the IRS filing as a basis for its own income tax and legally requires that state income tax be filed in exactly the same manner (joint or individual) as the federal taxes, There are already murmurs in Alabama, for instance, that Alabama may no longer be able to collect income taxes from either party in same-sex marriages because of this little glitch. The state legislature is out of session and the radical governor is considering calling it into special session to "repair" the state tax laws. Such "repair" may not be possible.

Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) defined "democracy" as "four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Why is the right so determined to take rights away from any group that can be pried away from white male southern caucasian? Do they think that other people having the same rights as themselves somehow magically "dliutes" those rights? Or is it more simple --- homophobes are most often people with insecurities about their own sexual identities and like Foley and Craig in Congress "doth protest a bit too much."

There, Bierce and Shakespeare in the same paragraph. That's literacy for you. LOL

This isn't the last word. I fully expect this to go to the Supreme Court and they will have to decide if DOMA is Constitutional or not.

This is just another step towards a showdown.

Chris: Interesting. But if the ability to regulate who can marry continues to lie with the states, then you can't be married in a state that doesn't allow it so you can't file a joint return anyway. All striking down DOMA does is stop the feds from defining marriage; it doesn't allow same-sex marriages everywhere. Frankly, this is getting confusing.

I guess they don't call it the "1st circus court of appeals" for nothing. Only the 9th is more liberal. Legislating from the bench. Another sign our system of government is hopelessly broken, and judicial activism on both the right and left is superseding the will of the people.

Simple solution to all of this. Marriage can be left as between a man and a woman, held in your temple of choice, in front of your god of choice and presided over by your religious minister of choice; you just get absolutely no governmental benefits from it. Seperation of church and state after all. Then we'll have civil unions, which can be between any two consenting adults and recieve all government benefits. Of course, if you get a religious ceremony wedding, you can still apply for a civil union and your benefits.

This would solve all the problems. Gays would get their benefits they deserve and the religious folks could keep their sanctimony of marriage ( or whatever they call it), everyone would be happy.

The issue of judges being "creative" in the interpretations is nothing new - the very fact that they are "interpretations" indicate a personal bias - this can be based on anything that has colored the perceptions of said justices. ...the choices that people make to follow the gay lifestyle IS abnormal...whether it be in animals or humans...it is against the biological nature...so why is a civil union not adequate? It is because the term "marriage" sounds "normal" to a homosexual and they want desperately to normalize their behavior instead of acknowledging that it is abnormal.

If a individual is capable of working why should they get a free ride at the working classes expense. stop all the unjust entitlement packages and let people pay their own way. then you won't have to worry about high taxes. government should not take your hard earned money away from you and give it to someone who is capable of working for their own living the whole thing is wrong and does not belong in our present day society get a job. socialism is destroying the country, things are getting out of control you do realize someone has to pay these bills its only fair that each of us be responsible for ourselves if possible and take the burdon off the other person, there is not enough money for everyone to be on government entitlements, no more free rides.

HAHA! it turns out laws that discriminate against groups of people ARE illegal and its funny they didnt already know that cause it's written in THE F'N CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

YOUR personal preferences do not trump MY rights!!!!

the only thing being destroyed is your sense of superiority and self righteousness, and you'll live just fine without it and so will I.

These entitlement packages are what is unconstitutional, its like one element of society enslaving the other. if a person is capable of working then they should pay their own way. the whole system is wrong. didn't we pass laws against slavery? you know that's when you work for someone Else's benefit. if you want someone to be cared for in the event you die then take out a insurance policy. whats wrong with peoples thinking.

TonyD..............Whatever floats your boat! Does your statement mean you no longer will adhere to ..."catch and release?"

For those of you who like to describe homosexuality as "against the biological nature" and "an abnormal lifestyle," please consider that it's quite often argued that monogamy - the traditional American premise of marriage - is against our biological nature. And polls seem to bear that out, particularly among men.

Thus, a faithful monogamous marriage could be considered an abnormal lifestyle. Mating with one person for life - forsaking all others - isn't actually normal in terms of human behavior. It's a choice. It's not chosen BECAUSE it's biologically natural; it's chosen because, as civilized humans, it seems fair and ideal for emotional and legal (child care, property rights) reasons. It's a workable basis for a society - the workable basis we've chosen.

And we - faithfully married non-polygamists - tend to "want desperately to normalize [our] behavior instead of acknowledging that it is abnormal."

House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today after Speaker Boehner announced he would convene the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to discuss defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court:

"The Speaker has indicated he is going to convene the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to decide whether to intervene in cases concerning the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe the Administration has correctly concluded that the statute is discriminatory and unconstitutional. I therefore will oppose intervening in cases regarding this Act.

"The Justice Department's decision not to defend this law is not without precedent. Since 1979, there have been over 50 instances in which both Democratic and Republican Administrations have declined to defend acts of Congress. Rarely has the House intervened to defend the constitutionality of statutes that the Justice Department has declined to defend."

http://www.democraticwhip.gov/content/hoyer-statement-speaker-boehners-decision-convene-bipartisan-legal-advisory-group-discuss-in

Is there any doubt that the Republican Party is the party of racism, bigotry and discrimination?

Not that it really matters but my question is simple. When did we change the constitution to allow the government to define Religious standards and beliefs??? Marriage between a Man and and woman is of a religious belief and not a government standard. Isn't this practice then in violation of the constitution in that the government isn't allowed to interfere with religion. Would someone please show a religon that has such a distorted belife. The marriage licence is a government requirement. Consumation of a marriage can only be achived one way and is designed for procreation. As far as the tax laws go they are flawed completely from the start. Equality doesn't say that if you earn 0-30,000 you pay x% and 30,001-100,000 you pay x%. you don't have to file a financial statement when paying your sales tax it is set at a predetermined % no exceptions. So why do we have such a problem with our income tax. Too many people stirring the pot.

Allen, if Clinton as at fault for these then so is Bush for all of the things the Democrat controlled Congress did leading up to the end of his stay. Guess who was in control of Congress while Clinton was in office. Here is a hint, it was not the Democrats.

That is not to say these did not pass with no Democratic support, there are idiots of both sides of the isle. As always I also think everyone forgets that a veto can be overridden and rendered as useless other then a political statement.

No one should bother replying to TrueLGBT - it's a web bot operated by the NOM hate group, and has never responded to anyone's reply.

*sigh*

i see all the annoying religious homophobes decided to come out of the bible cave today i guess. not having enough sense to realize that using the bible to make laws is theology and that our country ISN'T a democracy but a representative republic and we don't put basic rights of citizens up to a vote. i mean holy @!$%# how can you be so @!$%#ing ignorant and then think you know gods will!? i mean the shear arrogance of it is just sickening.

Phil-3222496

all things fade into history you idiot even America will eventually fall as everything does with the passing of time. if you really knew anything about history you would know that. The fact you try to compare gays to NAMBLA proves just how pathetic and worthless your argument is. Marriage is between at least two consenting ADULTS. i know my arguments probably won't help convince any of those religious nutcases because if you wanted to be logical and reasonable you wouldn't want to use a book written 2000 years ago to define your society.

I never understood why legal benefits of marriage should be infringed to any couples, be they gay, lesbian or straight. I've argued forever that gay marriage as called for by the LGBT groups is not acceptable, because it will eventually come back to infringe on freedom of religion by forcing pastors, bishops, et al to marry these couples when these couplings go against basic teachings of most religious organizations. Now some religions do say it's okay and perform such marriages where it's legal, but right now the majority of them teach against it and if a gay marriage bill is allowed to pass eventually a gay or lesbian couple will want a Catholic priest to marry them or some other religion where they know it is forbidden and that will just cause the s***storm of legal battles to start up all over again.

So in lieu of that, there's a perfectly acceptable and legal mandate in most, if not all, states where two people are allowed to enter into a domestic partnership (or it may be called by another name in other states) and it provides the legal benefits of marriage. I know there are many organizations that don't recognize domestic partnership as being equal to marriage, and that is quite frankly insane, and it causes dispute with benefits from corporations. That aside, if you want to have a ceremony to celebrate such a union, there you go. So let's move on from there.

Republicans sure do love passing laws that discriminate against any group they don’t like or agree with. Unless your rich, white, and evangelical your pretty much on the Republican #$%^ list. Discrimination is discrimination.... Period. This ruling was the right thing to do and renews my faith in our justice system.

name1

The societies faded but homosexuality did not continue as a widespread acceptable practice, is my point. Yes many nationalities have faded, but homosexuality hasn't held a widespread acceptance throughout all history. I don't care about your argument about ADULTS, the point is that people who desire something strong enough, will find a way to change the rules regarding their behavior, and force themselves upon their societies as the gay community has done. NAMBLA is the next perverted group as an example, it could be a variant, but in the next case, they will use the gay 'victory' and template to force themselves upon society themselves. Count on it! This has nothing to do with religion. You are obviously an ignorant person yourself and I don't appreciate your condescending attitude.

In response to the original post about "Activist Judges":

Please consider that without these "Activist Judges" and their ever evolving interpretation of law we would still be engaging in some pretty silly practices. For one we would still be denying both African Americans and women the right to vote. We would also live in a highly segregated/discriminatory society and would not have a protected set of Miranda rights. Just to name a few things...

Mr.Steady: And you know this how? Do you realize that the bible was NOT written by God or Jesus and has been re-written so many times by various groups that have interpreted it differently per their own perspectives. As a note, the bible is basically a book of "stories" much like a book on manners, and it tells us how we SHOULD act in various situations. It's not the "be all...end all" as to what should or should not be done. I'm as religious as the next person, and even I can realize this. Different religions "read" into the bible what they want to believe....and they don't always agree. So, until you ACTUALLY heard God or Jesus speak the words.....and I doubt that you were there....you have no basis for making comments except for your interpretion of what YOU think the bible is saying. The bible that I read tells us to love one another and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, if you feel that you should take away someone's constitutional rights to "love one another" (and it doesn't say man and woman...it says ONE ANOTHER)....than you are going against the bible, aren't you?

Joe F wrote:

Activist judges have also decided that developers can seize private land to build shopping centers on, where was the outrage over that?

I'm still outraged over that. The Constitution is clear on this point and requires no interpretation. The feds are prohibited from taking private land for public use without just compensation. The implication is that they can take private property for a public purpose if they pay a fair price for the property. In practice this has meant that property can be seized with modest compensation and sold at a profit to a private developer for his own private gain, usually with some benefit flowing back to the legislators. What's wrong with this picture? The government profits, the developer profits, but the original owner and the public.... uh, no.

This is wrong and everybody knows it's wrong but there's money involved, so....

I believe the court was doing what it is designed to do. Enforce provisions of the Constitution that give rights to states and citizens. The fact that two Republican and one Democtratic appointees agree speaks to this.

If you are worried about "Judicial Activism" you should be more concerned about the Citzen's United case where Cheif Justice Roberts ADDED the question of should corporations be treated as people under the consitution. There was no citizen who brought that question to the courts. The decision was idelogically divided with conservatives deciding yes and progressives saying no. The outcome, billionares are running our elections with their money.

I agree with the court inasmuch as they said there is no room for the federal government to dictate to the various states their definition of marriage.

30 states say that marriage is between one man and one woman. Wherever it has come to a vote, the same thing gets said over and over. So, I agree.

In Tennessee, 81% of the voters decided to amend the state constitution - marriage is between one man and one woman in Tennessee. We don't have 81% Republicans here, nor 81% Democrats. But we do have a consensus on what Tennesseans think about gay marriage.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government has no right to interfere with the State of Tennessee - or any other state - regarding the definition of marriage. I agree with that.

Phil-- if NAMBLA tries to get the vote then we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Past civilizations are irrelevant; that was then, this is now. We are here to talk about America finally becoming a big-boy nation that accepts the maturity and rights of it's citizens-- even the ones you homophobically consider vile and unnatural. Gays and lesbians are not on the same level as child molesters or sexual deviants, but it's interesting and telling that you would think so. In fact, homosexuals have already advanced quite a bit socially and legally in the last few decades, not to mention the last century, despite the efforts of disgusting, bigoted folks like yourself. And last I checked, we are still here.

Gay marriage will only fail or cause detriment to society because of people like you making it so to fit your screwy little worldview. Grow up.

name1

*sigh*

i see all the annoying religious homophobes decided to come out of the bible cave today i guess. not having enough sense to realize that using the bible to make laws is theology and that our country ISN'T a democracy but a representative republic and we don't put basic rights of citizens up to a vote. i mean holy @!$%# how can you be so @!$%#ing ignorant and then think you know gods will!? i mean the shear arrogance of it is just sickening.

Phil-3222496

all things fade into history you idiot even America will eventually fall as everything does with the passing of time. if you really knew anything about history you would know that. The fact you try to compare gays to NAMBLA proves just how pathetic and worthless your argument is. Marriage is between at least two consenting ADULTS. i know my arguments probably won't help convince any of those religious nutcases because if you wanted to be logical and reasonable you wouldn't want to use a book written 2000 years ago to define your society.

Wait a minute! NAMBLA is GAY, how the F can you discriminate against another GAY society? You are all about anti-discrimination, yet you discriminate against NAMBLA? Is it because of the sex with a minor laws? Just like the repealed sodomy laws.....the NAMBLA crew will try to repeal the sex with minors laws, and then they will have the same situation the gays are basking in now. And the progression moves on and on, till we have a society of extremely perverted people whom assert, 'bad to be good' and 'good to be bad'. That is the progression I am talking about. It is unsustainable and counterproductive.

Phil - same old puritanical arguments. It's not what you like so it must be perverted and evil.

News flash: there are plenty of hetero perverts...don't believe me, surf the web for oh 5 seconds. Google "donkey show," it certainly was not invented by homosexuals! Where's all your uproar about all the perverted heteros in America taking us down a slippery slope???

TrueLGBT, I just reported you for excessive spamming, have a nice day.

@Archie

You clowns tried for 8 years to impeach President Clinton and failed. What makes you think a bunch of low rent clowns can do it to President Obama in 3.5? What a joke you are. Your type keeps accusing him of crimes that don't exist. Not gonna happen, get over it and yourself.

I am pleased w/ the decision made today. It marks a step closer to freedom for all people. Isnt that what we all would like in our lives, freedom. As much as we can get, legally.

Yes, people good points, this world is going down the tubes morally. I'm sure everyone will get their own way eventually, this cannot continue indefinitely. Have fun while it lasts.

MmmMmmBeer

Phil - same old puritanical arguments. It's not what you like so it must be perverted and evil.

News flash: there are plenty of hetero perverts...don't believe me, surf the web for oh 5 seconds. Google "donkey show," it certainly was not invented by homosexuals! Where's all your uproar about all the perverted heteros in America taking us down a slippery slope???

Fancy footwork there dude, but there will always be pervs of every flavor, but they don't come out of the woodwork demanding that they receive special status and attention for their 'lifestyle' like the gays are. Your counterpoint has a bit of validity but is a sidetrack to the real issue. Too bad for you, you don't know how to argue.

MmmMmmBeer

Phil - same old puritanical arguments. It's not what you like so it must be perverted and evil.

News flash: there are plenty of hetero perverts...don't believe me, surf the web for oh 5 seconds. Google "donkey show," it certainly was not invented by homosexuals! Where's all your uproar about all the perverted heteros in America taking us down a slippery slope???

And yes, the perverted heteros are taking us down the slippery slope too! Your effort to debunk my opinions are laughable. We have been sliding for about 75 years, how long do we have to slide before we realize how far we have gone?? It is the creeping normalcy similar to Hitlers Germany, people in Germany knew things weren't right but stayed silent, because they didn't think they should say anything. Before they knew it, they were all part of a nation that was the world war II monster. The sheep of this country just keep letting morals decline further and further with no-one saying anything. I am sure we will hit bottom before anyone realizes that something should have been done to stop the slide. Thanks to the gullible people of this nation, the gays are making significant inroads where they would not have in times past. It is sad that people call it 'progress', more sheep bleating, more lemmings following the group over the cliff. There is little I can do but speak out. Too bad no-one has the sense in their heads to listen and they are proud of the perverts.

Phil, if gay sex bothers you so much, stop watching it.

Regardless, what two consenting adults do in bed together is none of your goddam business. You aren't the "ruler of romantic love" -- thank goodness. You call it perersion, well...yay for you. If that makes you feel better or superior, go for it. A lot of people in the US dont give a crap about your BuyBull or whatever it is that makes you hate gays - and nobody in a constitutional republic has to care at all about cult books or religion. But you'll still have your right to hate gays, just as you do now. So, no worries. But if your own marriage is worth a crap to start with, then the two guys down the road being legally married should have no effect on you. So, you can grow up any time.

cheers!

"Wait a minute! NAMBLA is GAY, how the F can you discriminate against another GAY society?"

No, NAMBLA are pedophiles, as you well know. At heart of this ruling and the laws about sex with minors, animals, etc., is the issue of consent. Again, as you well know.

@ Freedman1, (#1.94) Wrong! Federal courts have the authority to determine if state laws are constitutional or not. A state does not have the right to vote in a law that violates the US Constitution.

The court can say what it wants, but it can not just change laws. The judicial Branch was never to have so much power to change what they wanted.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

Powers of the Supreme Court

Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

• to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
• to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
• to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
• to Controversies between two or more States;
• between a State and Citizens of another State;
• between Citizens of different States;
• between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.

"Well," you might say, "someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?" Some possible answers:

• First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
• It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of "the fox guarding the hen house."
• The Constitution's "checks and balances" were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.
• Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.
• Justices are appointed for life. If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:

  "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

  It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.

• There are only nine Justices and, under the current system, it takes only a simple majority — five votes — to determine a case. Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the Constitution to pass Constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the Supreme Court, to uphold a suspect law, defies the spirit of the Constitution. If 44.44% of the Supreme Court justices (four of nine) think a law is not constitutional, we should err on the side of caution and declare it unconstitutional.
• The people and the states have little control over the makeup of the Supreme Court.
• Officials in all three branches of government take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Congressmen, and Vice President, and other federal officers, all take an oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution. (The president's oath of office in Article II, Section 1, requires that he "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") Why is the Supreme Court's version of "constitutional" considered more authoritative? Is the Judicial branch more to be trusted than the Executive or Legislative branches? Prudence dictates that we be wary of all three branches (and especially wary of the one unaccountable branch).
• Given that it was the people and the states which established the Constitution, it is the states who should settle issues of constitutionality. The Constitution is a set of rules made by the states as to how the government should act. The "judicial review" paradigm allows the government to make its own rules with no say by the original rule-makers — the states.
• The Constitution was created by the states and any question as to the meaning of the Constitution is rightly settled by the states. When you make rules for your children, do you permit your children to interpret your rules in any manner they like? Of course not. Yet, the states are permitting the federal government — the "child" of the states — to do exactly that.
• Since the power of Judicial Review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, this power, per the tenth amendment, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Read that last listed reason above again, for it contains the key to this site's being. The Constitution is very clear; any power to review laws to see if they are constitutional belongs to the states and to the people. Therefore, the Supreme Court is itself acting unconstitutionally when it exercises the power of 'Judicial Review.' It would require a Constitutional Amendment specifically granting this power to the court in order for 'Judicial Review' to be constitutional!

Also Id like to point out Alexander Hamilton and thomas Jefferson knew exactly how powerful judicial branch could be so it is meant to be kept in check with the other branches. So the Supreme court can say Doma is unconstitutional, but the law can not be changed by them. The other branches are going by what their reps are voting for, those reps are representing the people. If a state doesnt want Gay marriage, they can and will do just that. Want to get married as a gay couple, then they can easily move to a state that recognizes it.

Your own example leads to the constitutional review of state laws to be a conflict of interest by the states.

Judicial review is necessary, because the Supreme Court does not make laws and therefore has no conflict of interest. It is a basic premise of law to interpret, and the Constitution is the "law of the land", subject to interpretation by the highest legal authority.

The saddest part about this whole conversation is someone trying to claim states rights as an excuse for bigotry. Your very same argument could have been made with Loving v Virginia, and interracial marriage would have been killed off.

allswell, Crossfit is nevertheless correct that the power of judicial review was not given to the SC by the Constitution. Rather the SC seized it in Marbury vs Madison. The Congress blinked first and here we are. So, you should not be sad; the federal government works as you wish it to.

I agree.

Denying single people the benefits offered or afforded to married people (gay or straight) is also unconstitutional

Mr. PheaNiques, you only have a point if you can marry yourself.

Vote Democrat this November.

I am always suprised that no one ever sees that this is that same as when they said blacks couldn't marry whites or way back when they used the bible to say we had a right to keep slaves.

Everything I'm seeing and hearing regarding overturning such laws points to an inescapable conclusion which is that most other unions will also fall into the category of equal treatment under the law. Polygamy and other types of unions will soon follow, and why not? You can't provide equal treatment under the constitution for one particular group while denying it to another group.

DOMA is the first time the federal government has entered what has ALWAYS been a state issue: Marriage. If a state decides to allow gay marriage, Federal benefits MUST automatically come as they do with straight marriage.

None of my business what other couples do, straight or gay.

"The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

- MLK Jr.

Eric,

Well said, buddy. Well said.

Our planet will be just fine.

The religious do not have the right to force their views on the non-religious. Religious, or non-religious, freedom goes both ways.

Pheaniques, the law of the land can distinguish between the numbers 1 and 2. It takes two to marry. Note to others: the law of the land can also distinguidh between the number 2 and others numbers larger than 2. Thus 2 people getting married is legal (within current age and blood relationship boundaries) and 3 or more people getting married is not. So Gay Marriage does not lead to polygamy nor does it lead to marrying your dog or your toaster.

Callooh! Callay!

WetWilly,

For Pete's Sake! If you think that you should be able to answer my question...

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?

Sarah,

The moral arc of every historic super power (successful civilization) has curved toward laziness, debauchery, materialism, corruption and demise.

Denying single people the benefits offered or afforded to married people (gay or straight) is also unconstitutional.

The last I checked, it was impossible to inherit your own property after you die or to visit yourself in the hospital. But if you want to try and violate the laws of physics feel free.

J70141: And exactly how would this FORCE you to marry a homosexual?? Common sense works both ways. Marriage is a civil matter. If your church wants to discriminate, THAT would be legal (just don't expect many people to applaud you for hate...AND to back your tax exempt status while you're at it.)

Another step towards an inevitable conclusion.

So, if the federal government didn't afford special privileges to the married, then there would be no issue in states outlawing marriage between same genders? (Honest question)

Denying anyone rights based on something the babble says is moronic. You can't legislate morality. You can't continue to pass laws to control who dates who, who marries who, and who can live with whom they choose. You can't continue to pass laws controlling a woman's right to make ANY choices for her well being. Those laws open avenues to further laws of control of other population groups. Eventually the extreme white wing of the GOP will pass an obscure law banning blacks and whites for dating.. . The GOP want to control every aspect of a persons being.

The GOP have only 2 issues to ever run on at election time. 1: Wars (Willard & the GOP along with Israel want to destroy Iran.) 2: Morality & Religion are the other.

They have a horrible record with the economy, jobs, Domestic issues. The GOP beLIEves that being strong at home is ruling the world. BS. The GOP have pissed on the American people for the last 30 years, going back to Reagan who started this warfare of the Middle class. The GOP love to wrap themselves in the American flag and declare that they are the true defenders of freedom. The GOP fail to realize that religion equals conformity and conformity equals slavery.

The GOP fret the day that Prop 8 from The Best coast, except for Boston, makes it to SCOTUS. Even the most rght leaning SCOTUS won't back the GOP plans to make certain groups of people in America illegal. The GOP want to write Discrimination back into the US Constitution by their man/woman only marriage. As if a man/woman only marriage has set the standard so high that gay marriage can't do any better. I mean the average is 40-50% of divorces will end in marriage. Higher for those of us on our 2nd marriage about 70%..

The GOP have had a long history of control by edict. If they can't get the people to conform through words and suggestive language, then laws and trumped up attacks on Americas interests occur. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU Look very closely to the underbelly of the plane and then compare the colors and non-existent markings to "the plane the Bush regime claims hit the WTC".. Commercial jets do not have 2 bumps under the fuselage or are they matte charcoal gray in color and commercial jets always have a glossy or shiny multiple colored paint scheme. And very easily readable tail markings and all commercial jets have a silver underbelly.

Pyngywn,

There would still be an issue. If the state grants the lisense, the state has to grant them under the banner of equal protection. Fulfilling the desire to marry the person you love, is an inherent benefit, not granted by the state, but dependant on the state, and it's allowance of marriage.

If you think about it, marriage lisenses are no different then any other state issued document.

This is and always has been an issue of civil rights AND the separation of church and state. The Constitution and it's amendments state very clearly that "all men are created equal" and it further states that we will not have state-sponsored religion. All Americans have equal rights and protections under the law according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ALL AMERICANS.

Some religions, based on the teachings of bronze age texts (The Old Testament) preach that Homosexuality and same gender sexual relations are taboo. Those same texts endorse slavery and regard women as "chattel" possessions of their husbands or fathers. Those last two have been re-written in a more politically correct manner to remove the references to slaves and take women out of the category of 'property'. A lot has changed in three thousand years and as time goes by more and more of the Old Testament will be set aside by more enlightened societies.

You cannot, under the Constitution, discriminate against a segment of society based on your religious beliefs. It is unconstitutional. Period. To allow such discrimination endorses those beliefs and thereby sponsors certain specific interpretations of the Bible, ie: establishes are state religion.

Counting all the various religious beliefs recognized and practiced in America and the countless variations on those themes we have several hundred different belief systems being taught and followed in this country. I don't care if you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, or a Jew, you do not get to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us and that includes the belief that same-sex marriage is a sin.

The court's ruling is correct. To believe anything else is your right under our Constitution. To base public policy on your religious belief is unconstitutional.

So, if the federal government didn't afford special privileges to the married, then there would be no issue in states outlawing marriage between same genders? (Honest question)

It's not just "special" privileges. What do you think would happen to inheritance laws if the government wasn't involved? It would be a nightmare sorting out which relatives get what if a person didn't leave a will. Hospitals would also have difficulty working out powers of attorney for someone who was ill or injured and unable to respond. You could expect incidents like Terry Schiavo to increase if spouses didn't have that legal protection.

So the DOJ is not defending the laws passed by congress? Are you f'n kidding me, they don't have the POWER to decide that, that is for the judicial branch of the government.

I don't care if you like DOMA or disagree with it that is unacceptable and Holder should be held accountable.

So, if the federal government didn't afford special privileges to the married, then there would be no issue in states outlawing marriage between same genders? (Honest question)

That is a fair question. The answer is that while there are indeed many legal benefits granted to married couples, even when those are taken away, gay people love each other and long for the same level of publicly acknowledged commitment as any one else. I just do not understand why so many religious people want to stand up and say no, you guys cannot marry each other. What makes it their business? According to their religion, when it is all said and done, they believe that gays will end up in hell anyway. So why do they care?

Simple. The also believe that being gay is a choice. That it's like an illness you can catch. They really think like that preacher said, if you fenced them all away and let all the gays die out, that would be the end of it. So... how do you fix THAT? How do you fix a stupid that is so deeply etched into their souls that they think they chose to be straight???

liberal federal judges and this administration are taking this country down the road to total destruction. Believe, deny it, whatever you want to do but, God has removed His hand from this country.

Umm...at what point did God have his hand in this country? When The Native Americans were being slaughtered? When slaves were being kept, raped and killed? When free slaves were been lynched? When people of color and women were being denied civil rights? How about when we were over in other countries killing or oppressing innocent people for the sake of our corporate owners? ...well we still do that. Or maybe we were turning a blind eye or covering up gross injustices we saw happening? I'm just trying to figure out which period was "God's work".

@ Sarah, you can take your argument 1 step further, or shall I? lol.. I think by forcing someone to have insurance before they can operate any vehicle is no different than forcing someone to have health insurance. Lets face it, a majority of Americans live in places with sub-par or non-existent public transportation services and thus are by default forced into auto insurance or the alternative is to hoof it everywhere, bike or hitch a ride..

Yes we have choices to make every day, the GOP thinks otherwise.

Since so many couples seem to think marriage no longer means "til death do we part", I think there should be domestic partnerships for all. That way they can agree on the divorce terms, prior to getting married and while they are still on speaking terms. Marriage licences would no longer be required, just lawyers for both parties at the beginning and the end.

Those so inclined could have church services and or a reception to celebrate.

Hey Travel, please show us all the FEDERAL law that requires you to have auto insurance to drive a car.

Enlighten us ALL!

Anyone, such as Steve-2570999, who believes this is the same thing as not allowing black people to marry is misguided. The entire debate of gay marriage is based on whether you believe the premise that a person is born gay. Religious people know that God doesn't make someone born more sinful than someone else by making them homosexual. And yes, God says homosexuality is a sin. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9 if you don't believe me. Now, that doesn't mean someone may *feel* homosexual desires instilled by Satan who wants you to defy God. So if someone does have those feelings, that still doesn't mean they have to act on them. Humans have free will. Homosexuals *choose* to act on their homosexual feelings, despite knowing that God has said homosexuality is a sin. So with that out of the way, practicing homosexuality is a choice that must be acted upon. This is unlike a person's race, which really is out of a person's control, not to mention there is NOTHING sinful about a person's race.

So, don't make that lame argument because this is NOT the same thing as denying someone getting married just because of their race. Now Steve, what is YOUR argument for how is this the same as mixed race marriages? The effect is the same: people not getting married. But that doesn't mean the premises of the debate are the same, as I outlined above.

"We are thrilled that another court -- this time, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals -- has ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny respect to the marriages of lesbian and gay couples, said Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “We congratulate our colleagues at GLAD for achieving this wonderful victory."

I find this ironic that she would use the word "respect" since homosexuals don't know how to respect either the religious or the legal definition of marriage that have stood for over 200 years (and homosexuality has been around for over a thousand years). I know this because homosexuals are wanting to change the definition to specifically suit their needs, not because they want to change the definition to suit anyone's needs (e.g. more than 2 people getting married).

The various states' legal definitions of marriage all stem from the religious definition, because when you think about it, when European lawmakers were creating Common Law, what other system was available to base their laws upon? Religious teachings of course. That doesn't mean you had to be religious to not commit a crime; there is a difference. Many other state laws stem from laws that originated in Europe, which based their laws on religion. The origin of marriage is no different. There is no religion that generally accepts an altered definition of marriage. Any legal change is simply trying to find an end run around religion for one thing. What is more worrisome is what stops homosexuals from changing the religious definition after the legal definitions are altered?

I guess the saving grace is that, if you believe in evolution, homosexuals will just die out because they can't reproduce on their own. I guess they are the devolving part of the evolutionary branch of life that humans are a part of. If that doesn't get it through your thick skull that homosexuality is unnatural then I don't know what will. And the argument that "some frogs are homosexual too" is a fallacy. Some frogs actually *change* their sex, which isn't the same thing.

I agree withe the courts decision, but probably not for the reason most of you do. No where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to Regulate Marriage. That by default is left to the state. And if states want to allow Gay Marriage, Marriage with Animals or polygamy I am fine with that. and if others don't I am fine with that also.

Eric,

I was not aware that God needed any of us to speak for him on this issue. Just because people like to pick and chose the parts they want to believe, does not mean that he has not already spoken.

What the heck is all this talk about the GOP? What party is responsible for DOMA? What party is responsible for DADT? You lefties twist everything. The vote in the House for DOMA was 342-67-2 and the Senate was 85-14, sounds BI-PARTISAN to me. If I recall both were signed by a democrat. And the birther movement was started by a democrat. I get tired of the lies from the left. Stand up and take responsibility for the ppast and quit blaming everything on the other side.

And yes, God says homosexuality is a sin.

God says a lot of things are a sin, the last I checked we don't use a list of sins to determine what's legal or not. If you want to get non-Christians to agree with you you're going to have to do better than quote a two thousand year old book.

Marriage is/was defined by the church and religious organizations. Let churches continue to define marriage within their own organization. If the government would apply a bigger umbrella (rather than continue to define marriage) that would place people as "co-inhabitants" (this would include people married in the church) then the issue would be solved. Gays could get "married" in churches that support such an idea but the legal recognition with the government would only be that you are a "co-inhabitants".

The problem with the government recognizing co-inhabitants is that it would place people "living" together under the same rules as "married". You would have to claim "co-inhabitant" status if you collect welfare or get benefits that would otherwise change if you were married.

@ Wet Willy

Ah the ol' slippery slope rhetoric spouted by mornic people stuck in the past, what is next you want to start talking about how this is going to lead to beastiality?

TBH if you could find any amount of women all willing to marry the same man (or a number of men all willing to marry the same woman) without being forced into it at a young age by religious "authority" I think you would see that it wouldn't happen very often and for those that it did happen to would have no effect on your day to day life.

Brandon, Corinthians was written by Paul, and as such, has his beliefs into those letters. Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. Does your bracelet say WWPD or WWJD?

I suspect this will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court - just like interracial marriages. A decade after gay marriage is ruled a constitutional right, most people will wonder why it was ever such a big issue to begin with.

What party is responsible for DOMA? What party is responsible for DADT? You lefties twist everything.

DOMA was introduced by Don Nickles, a social conservative. The only reason that DADT was introduced at all is because the right was screaming against open service. Try again.

Marriage with Animals or polygamy

When an animal becomes a tax-paying citizen of the USA, I'll pay for the honeymoon. Polygamy is illegal in all states of the US - even for Mormons.

Brandon,

The entire debate of gay marriage is based on whether you believe the premise that a person is born gay.

Technically, that's beside the point. This is a legal issue, so the lack of a legitimate state interest in banning gay marriage would be more to the point.

And yes, God says homosexuality is a sin.

We are protected from what your God does or doesn't say, under our secular laws.

The effect is the same: people not getting married. But that doesn't mean the premises of the debate are the same,

Actually it does. Outside of being about marriage and declaring it a civil right, the very reason Loving v Virginia is applicable here, is that the dissenters, those trying to ban marriage in both cases, used the same defense.

If it wasn't a valid, legal defense then, why would it be now?

I find this ironic that she would use the word "respect" since homosexuals don't know how to respect either the religious or the legal definition of marriage that have stood for over 200 years

First, no one has to respect your religion. It's your religion, not ours. Second, how long had the prohibition on women voting stood for, before we knocked that off??? I sure would hate to live like we did 200 years ago. THAT'S CALLED PROGRESS.

The various states' legal definitions of marriage all stem from the religious definition, because when you think about it, when European lawmakers were creating Common Law, what other system was available to base their laws upon? Religious teachings of course. That doesn't mean you had to be religious to not commit a crime; there is a difference. Many other state laws stem from laws that originated in Europe, which based their laws on religion. The origin of marriage is no different. There is no religion that generally accepts an altered definition of marriage. Any legal change is simply trying to find an end run around religion for one thing. What is more worrisome is what stops homosexuals from changing the religious definition after the legal definitions are altered?

Yada, yada, yada, RELIGION DOES'T MATTER, yada, yada, yada. Here's why...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof...

Everything that's in bold, prior to the comma, is your freedom FROM religion. This is why...

If it wasn't, you'd have no freedom to PRACTICE religion. The freedom to and freedom from, in this case CAN NOT BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If you weren't free from religion, by default the government could sanction a specific religion, conferring benefits for those who practice it or forcing people to practice it, thereby putting those who don't believe in it, don't want to practice it, or those who practice a different religion at an automatic disadvantage.

Continuing, what does religious nuetrality by our government look like? What does the government not placing no religion over religion look like? Well, it looks like nothing, and nothing doesn't equal something. A great example I read on this vine was, if you're pushing against a wall and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No, of course not. If this wasn't true, the only way the 1st Amendment could work would be to print a disclaimer on every government building, in every government EVERYTHING, saying that the lack of religious content, or whatever, didn't constitute a government sanctioning of Atheism.

To have COMPLETE freedom TO practice your religion, you need COMPLETE freedom FROM all other religions.

Furthermore, whether the words are specifically said within the Constitution doesn't matter. You have a lot of rights guarenteed to you that aren't enumerated, but rather interpreted. You can thank the 9th Amendment for that.

Finally, don't even try to give me that 10th Amendment crap. The 10th Amendment was written prior to the Bill of Rights being applicable to the states. Once we instituted the 14th Amendment, or the "incorporation amendment", the 10th in regards to anything contained within the first nine amendments, became null and void.

I guess the saving grace is that, if you believe in evolution, homosexuals will just die out because they can't reproduce on their own.

Either can people who are infertile, yet we continue to have them in our society. Besides, this is completely, logically, contradictory to your position. If it's a CHOICE, they CHOOSE it, and it has nothing to do with evolution.

Denying anyone rights based on something the babble says is moronic. You can't legislate morality

As soon as you bring up that point, you loose the argument. By your logic there should be no laws against murder, pedophilia, rape, stealing, etc. Either there are moral absolutes or there aren't. You decide.

lolfatty

Look at the votes in Congress. Try again yourself.

Speaking for a friend I know, lemmee see if I got this right....

He's unemployed, quasi disabled, numerous physical issues. Probably couldn't hold a part time job flipping burgers. But he's a really nice guy. We've been good friends for like 20 years. But with the issues he has, probably couldn't find/get/hold a relationship with any female(as he would prefer a mate, as would I) (it's called preference).

He could move in with me , we could call ourselves married, and he'd have access to all the benefits I have???? That's all it'd take?? And after X-amount of years, after our *divorce*, he'd still have medical for life ??

Wow, only in America..lol. Everyone argues bout the pay of us civil servants..pfftttttttt.. I'd nearly work for free, benefits only !!

Mr.Steady, murder, pdophilia, rape, stealing, etc. infringe on the rights of others. It has nothing to do with morals.

Mr. Steady,

Cult hit the nail on the head. Those are things that would be illegal regardless of whether or not they were in the Bible. There are also, NUMEROUS things SANCTIONED by the Bible which are illegal, and many things NOT allowed by the Bible which are legal.

JH,

Sure, I guess. You could also do that with a female friend.

Bent,

Marriage is/was defined by the church and religious organizations. Let churches continue to define marriage

Wrong. That's Holy Matrimony or its equivalent. That's why this is true...

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.

Are you conservatives all old and fear mongering people?

i dont understand it...

you think gays would make the world implode or somthing?

while we are still following the bible that endorses: slavery,rape,incest,kidnapping,stoning,genocide,destruction of cities/world,war/rebellion, degredation of woman, killing of children by animals, execution

yeahhhhhhhhhh...... so if i made fun of a bald priest would i get mawed by an animal? same logic...the world wont be destroyed becuase i, alone , as young as i am HAS LIVE THROUGH 4 END OF THE WORLD PROPHECIES.....

you guys remind me of Harold camping...HMMMM

remember when you guys said the world would end when they regalize gay marriage? what is it? 7 states now? i dont see much fire...

"j70141 in Colorado" wrote:

"The non-religious do not have the right to force their views on the religious. Religious, or non-religious, freedom goes both ways. Works both ways there mate. I'm pretty sure I could point to a large number of recent articles where the liberals have been forcing their ways upon the churches."

OK, and just what is being forced upon churches? Not companies/institutions (that are being advised that they have to operate under the same rules as all companies/institutions), but actual churches and religious orders? I don't think you can, I surely can't!. So, go back to your church and do what you want, even belly ache that others won't listen to your "holier than thou" rants. And I, in my own way, will continue to tell you to keep your nose and pie hole out of my face! YMMV

The day people follow the bible like stoning their child if they stray from the faith or executing a woman if she isnt a virgin upon marriage, then talk about how "immoral" somone is...

until then, keep your religion of self righteouness, cruel justification and dogma to yourself

As soon as you bring up that point, you loose the argument. By your logic there should be no laws against murder, pedophilia, rape, stealing, etc. Either there are moral absolutes or there aren't. You decide.

How much of the bible requires interpretation? Do you rigorously follow every single commandment in the bible? As soon as you have to interpret something for context moral absolutism loses its teeth.

Brandon, I actually have no words to even begin to respond to your post. It's not worth arguing with someone whose logic is so terribly misguided.

JH-479998 - What the heck is all this talk about the GOP? What party is responsible for DOMA?

The author of DOMA was Georgia Republican Bob Barr.

Barr has since repudiated DOMA and called it unconstitutional and unnecessary. He's called for it to be repealed entirely.

http://news.change.org/stories/bob-barr-the-architect-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act-again-calls-for-its-repeal

So very few of you have problems with the executive branch of of government not executing laws?

Brandon

You can NOT use religion as a justification for discrimination... we are a secular society. Your entire argument fails due to this basic point.

To legally discriminate against a specific class you must PROVE that this discrimination is beneficial to society as a whole, WITHOUT using religion (relative to each individual) as an argument.

If you are up to the challenge, you must PROVE that not allowing homosexuals to sign a government backed contract dealing with property rights, asset allocation, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc, is beneficial to society as a whole. You can NOT use religion to prove your point. Good luck.

Cult; Higher taxes, deficits and national debt, due to more entitlements does infringe upon me.

Overpaid; pretty slippery slope is it not?

Pah; Agreed this issue is better handled by local and state entities (founding fathers great experiment that everyone seems to forget), But Sarah is right about the eventuality of the feds putting their noses in the issue, by calling it a human rights issue (again I wonder how African American's feel about homosexual "right" to marriage preference being compared to the rights they had to fight for).

I tend to not look at this issue thru the lense of law, but more thru the lense of what is good for society. It is my belief that the most important/basic form of government is the family, and that unit is best served (generally speaking) by a male, female and children. Government should support that model and remain silent on others.

"By your logic there should be no laws against murder, pedophilia, rape, stealing, etc."

Those laws are actually beneficial to a functional society regardless of their perceived moral benefit. Even in tribal society where deities were not as rulemongering about such human activity things like murder and theft were not tolerated as it is not beneficial to the group.

If society didn't outlaw something like murder than society could not function - its that simple - theft, pedophelia and rape work in a similar context - its hardly due to their moral benefit (while the moral benefit is still beneficial in this case) rather if those types of activities were not prohibited society would lose its benefit to the individual and any motivation to collaborate.

Tod

Higher taxes, deficits and national debt, due to more entitlements does infringe upon me.

Nothing to do with gay marriage... you are struggling.

pretty slippery slope is it not?

The "slippery slope" argument is the last, desperate attempt by those who do not have a solid argument to stand on.

I tend to not look at this issue thru the lense of law, but more thru the lense of what is good for society.

Homosexuals represent a significant customer base for small businesses in the marriage industry... a multi-billion dollar industry.

By not allowing gay marriage you are restricting potential customers, and potential profits, to these businesses. Do you believe that small business profits and success are good for society? Are you anti-business... supporting legislation that restricts profits? Or pro-business... supporting legislation that improves profits for businesses?

It is my belief that the most important/basic form of government is the family, and that unit is best served (generally speaking) by a male, female and children. Government should support that model and remain silent on others.

Please provide supporting documentation that PROVES that "family" is the most important form of government. Given the majority of marriages end in divorce, and there are more single-parent households than dual-parent... I would assume those FACTS would be of larger concern to your "family" argument.

But I will await your supporting facts and figures that PROVE a male, female, child family is the most beneficial.

Also, what about couples who do not have children? The male, female "family" that is missing the third leg you listed. Shall we remove their rights as well, because they do not fall into your categorized definition?

Jemma77 The religious do not have the right to force their views on the non-religious. Religious, or non-religious, freedom goes both ways.

In theory that should work both ways. But aren't the non-religious pushing there views on the religious, just as much as the religious are pushing their views on the non-religious?

Capt

...agree that queers (term acceptable to my gay friends) will be the end of the country. Even the gay community that I associate with concedes they have to stay a minority to exist at all (for a good time get a queer drunk and talking, it's very enlightening!).

I'm not sure how gays need a minority to exist or that they will destroy a country. Are you suggesting that because gay people don't have the right gear to have kids that they will eventually die out? I sincerely doubt that they would be so stupid as to never ever under no circumstances have sex with the opposite sex in order to have children.

As a matter of fact, it it weren't so difficult for them to adopt there would be more raising them. There are plenty of homosexuals that are fine with having sex with the opposite sex and more still would do it to have children of their own. What a really sad comment on your part.

Sarah, Thought you would like this ruling.

Skip,

You cannot, under the Constitution, discriminate against a segment of society based on your religious beliefs.

Not sure which comment you were addressing, but I see comments like yours a lot. Be careful NOT to assume that if I don't agree that gays should be able to marry that it is religiously based. You will argue that it is. BUT, I know a lot of rednecks that sure as heck aren't christians, but will not agree with gay marriage.

People think humans need to procreate...then again i dont know which monster breeded these homophobes...

8billion people on this bloody earth and WE NEED MORE!

they also think the world is going to IMPLODE....really...

-harold camping club sudden appears outthe no where-

its a slippery slope, people tell u what to do, feeding your fear, telling you what is right and wrong. get offa ur high horses n stop judging people. u people r too eagar to play "god". Ban divorce, cuz marriage means nothing to u guys anyways

Sarah,

You're HOT (if that's you)! I also disagree with many of your premises...too many to list. In post 2.45 you sidestepped almost every issue and addressed many out of context, are you an attorney? Seriously. Your arguments appear to have the bias I see in litigation from both sides of the aisle. You have an intelligent tack...try hitting issues from a more objective perspective and tone down the hatred and disdain a little...you'll go farther and possibly sway more people ;)

clb,

In theory that should work both ways. But aren't the non-religious pushing there views on the religious, just as much as the religious are pushing their views on the non-religious?

YES, but they don't see it that way. For example. If I have an opinion that you agree with, you see me as "open minded" or "smart." If I have an option that you do not agree with, especially if it is a strong disagreement, then I am "judgemental." And you will get a label such a "homophobe."

"In theory that should work both ways. But aren't the non-religious pushing there views on the religious, just as much as the religious are pushing their views on the non-religious?"

Examples???

Many people seem to forget that the United States is a SECULAR government, the mere suggestion that any religeon is having views pushed on it is ridiculous - give me one example, all I ask for is 1, of a non religeous organization that busted into a church and began forcing its views on the parishoners - because the reverse happens ALL THE TIME.

Not sure which comment you were addressing, but I see comments like yours a lot. Be careful NOT to assume that if I don't agree that gays should be able to marry that it is religiously based. You will argue that it is. BUT, I know a lot of rednecks that sure as heck aren't christians, but will not agree with gay marriage.

I can't think of any other basis aside from religion beyond "I find it icky", discredited studies and various degrees of misinformation.

Wouldn't letting gay couples get married actually help the country? I mean, we have thousands of gay couples that can't get married...once they can, they'll be booking wedding after wedding, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on ceremonies, pumping their money into the economy. My goodness, what horror.

dogma bites-

gays are turned homophobes be family n religion. its tragic

if everyone is gay then the world will end..but really? what kind of far fetch fantasy is this?

10% of the people are gay...and its pretty constant

unbanning gay marriage doesnt make people gay

its a rights issue

clb

In theory that should work both ways. But aren't the non-religious pushing there views on the religious, just as much as the religious are pushing their views on the non-religious?

There is one main difference... the religious are not only pushing their "views", they are actually restricting rights of other people. They are acting on their views to directly limit another group of society.

The non-religious are trying to stop this action, but they are NOT forcing anything on the religious. This issues will not directly affect the religious by limiting their rights or taking anything away from them.

For example: The religious are physically pushing someone, moving them and directly affecting their life. The non-religious want you to stop pushing. This does NOT mean that you are suddenly being pushed and directly influenced... you are just no long pushing someone else.

You are making the argument that YOU have the right to infringe upon and take away rights from another group. And if you no longer have the right to directly limit the rights of other people, that is somehow infringing upon you.

To be clear... you can keep your VIEWS, that will not change. You can hate whoever you want. But when your "view" crosses over into a direct, physical action that affects this other group, THAT is where you must stop. You can revel in your hatred as much as you want and keep your "view"... no one is taking your "view" away.

Indi,

I said "I believe" so whats your point.

Your "customer argument is plain silly, and in case you actually did not read the article, it's about federal benefits for homosexual couples. More benefits = more $, my $.

An astute poster above mentioned the very real possibility of non-homosexuals pretending marriage or sexual co-habitation to cheat the system. You could also make a good argument for single people being descriminated against (not being able to pass on their benefits). I see an entirely new government buearocracy to police whether or not you are truely gay. What a nightmare!!

And yes, I am even more disturbed over the divorce rate in this country. The amount of kids being raised by single mothers is a very real problem (I'll leave you to research the stats on that, its not difficult). Please, I am not disparaging single moms, I am actually disgusted with the destructive irresponsible trend in fathers.

Sock, If you're going to post actual statistics, please try and be somewhere in the ball park of reality;

10% come on, try 2-3% max

TXhorseman-

that is true, its the same way people labal others as gay or straight, or ugly, or fat

there is no way to have diabietes and not be called diabetic right?

people need to loosen up, everyone should have an open mind. the mind set bent on restricting others based on YOUR standard and "morals" is NOT justified, it out of spite and self righteouness....

as I say- You cant tolerate people's intolerance, dont go around justifying hate, and expect people to respect you- the "moral" and "norm" does not exist, it is out of self righteouness we act out of.

and then u have people who go around saying its a slippery slope, and its pedophelia, or perverted....hypocrisy when its a lesbian, when guys stare at girl's ass from behind thier backs, and fear when its a far fetch fantasy

Capt,

If you believe I've side stepped. Be specific. How so? Where? What is unclear? How is biased? Back your position up, please.

TX,

How's my favorite conservative? Did you get my message?

Tom,

If the law is unconstitutional, it is therefore illegal, ergo, to uphold it, would be to break the law. I have no problem with them NOT enforcing unconstitutional laws.

For those that keep saying the state has the right to decide if there will be gay marriage or not. WRONG!

The states still cannot enact laws that violate the US Constitution. If the law is found to be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether it's state or federal. It's still unconstitutional. State laws that didn't allow interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional and were struck down. The same will happen to laws or state constitutional amendments that forbid gay marriage.

Eventually, all laws and constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage WILL be struck down as unconstitutional.

Sarah, Yes!!

What I've seen for reasons for and against gay marriage:

For - The Constitution grants everyone equal rights and our country is not allowed to make laws based off of religion or religious beliefs

Against - Religious beliefs and others just don't like it

And yet the Against side wins most of the time?

Sockurmouth,

people need to loosen up, everyone should have an open mind. the mind set bent on restricting others based on YOUR standard and "morals" is NOT justified, it out of spite and self righteouness....

Actually I do not disagree with you. BUT I am also aware that it can be a slippery slope. We all can't do whatever we want, whenever we want. Just won't work. As far as gay marriage. Don't care. Just don't be offended when the local church won't let you get married there. They are christian and as such will follow their belief and faith. No matter what you or others think about it, agree with it or not. It is as much a part of them as some of the morals or belief system you have. Whatever those may be. I have actually had females get mad at me for opening a door for them. Don't care. Will do it anyway.

And for goodness sake, close your mouth when you are chewing!!!

The non-religious or non-CHRISTIAN (since that's what it boils down to) are not going to the state houses to regulate what happens inside your church, mosque, temple, synagogue, cathedral or wherever you gather to practice and celebrate your religion. The government IS telling BUSINESSES that in order to operate as a BUSINESS they must adhere to BUSINESS-related laws. Nobody is telling is the Catholics that they can no longer pray to saints or Mary. Nobody is telling Protestants that they MUST pray to the saints or Mary. Nobody is telling your priest/preacher/reverend/imam/rabbi what to teach the congregation within the bounds of the church/temple/synagogue/mosque. Nobody is telling Jews that they must believe Jesus was the Messiah. Nobody is telling Muslims that they must stop praying to Allah or Mohammad. Nobody is telling Christians that they must remove all depictions of people from their churches or that Temples and synagogues must have depictions of people in their decorations. Nothing regarding the practice of a religion within the bounds of religion is being challenged. What IS being challenged is those areas which are BUSINESSES and thus should be bound to the laws that govern every other business. This is NOT trampling on the freedom to practice your religion. Allowing non-Christians access to birth control if they work for a Catholic hospital in NO WAY forces the CATHOLIC employees to purchase birth control. They can still practice their beliefs that it is a sin or forbidden to them. Nobody is forcing them to get a prescription for it or take it. Nobody is forcing the priests and nuns to use birth control. It is allowing the employees who do NOT view it as a sin (or are taking it for medical reasons) access to health care.

In fact, someone here on the Vine pointed out that having access to birth control that is covered by health insurance would be an IDEAL way for a Catholic woman to show her adherence to the faith by NOT taking it - NOT giving in to "temptation". How true is any faith that is never tested or challenged? How secure is it if the faith demands that secular authorities never provide "temptation"? How real is any religion that controls their flock so tightly that the people of the religion are never confronted by other people of differing views? In the last case, that's not a religion ... it's a CULT.

Sarah,

"If the law is unconstitutional, it is therefore illegal, ergo, to uphold it, would be to break the law. I have no problem with them NOT enforcing unconstitutional laws."

But the executive branch does not get to decided constitutionality, that is left for the judicial branch.

And if you believe that this decision makes it unconstitutional and shouldn't be defended by the DOJ, I hope you would be consistent in your belief the DOJ shouldn't be defending Obama care in court. (Which I know you aren't)

So either you are a hypocrite or you are OK with the Party in Power deciding what laws should be upheld, and remember with that belief you party will not always be in power. It may or may not be the next election but there will come a time and I hope you won't complain when the other side is or isn't defending something you believe in.

So a judge from a state that permits Gay 'Marriage' has ruled that 'Gay Marriage' is legally acceptable.

And we're supposed to be surprised?

Tod

Your "customer argument is plain silly

How is that silly? Massachusetts added $111 MILLION to the state economy in the first five years from gay marriage. NY is estimating $142 MILLION from wedding-related purchases and another $184 MILLION in additional spending, in the first three years, from gay marriage. It is also estimated that if same-sex marriage was legalized across the country, that would generate an additional $1 BILLION in spending each year.

Those are all factual numbers, you can look them up. Weddings are expensive, people spend A LOT of money on weddings. That is money for businesses in the marriage industry.

So, how are my factual numbers that show actual spending in the economy, due to gay marriage, "silly"?

And if it is "silly"... please provide the statistics and facts that prove that no spending occurred due to gay marriage. I would personally love to learn how they all receive free weddings, free jewelry, free catering, free site bookings, and all guests get free gifts to give to the couple.

An astute poster above mentioned the very real possibility of non-homosexuals pretending marriage or sexual co-habitation to cheat the system.

How is this any different than straight couples who already do this? Are you saying that only straight couples are allowed to "cheat the system"?

And yes, I am even more disturbed over the divorce rate in this country. The amount of kids being raised by single mothers is a very real problem

So where is your movement to ban divorce? Where are you protesting, with signs, against divorce? Where are the rally's, the marches, the TV commercials, the petitions to stop divorce? Where are the quotes from Biblical scripture condemning those who get divorced? Where are the shouts of: "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL" towards divorcees?

For someone who is "more disturbed" by this... you are awfully quiet on the matter.

Matt - you forgot the most important part against Marriage, The Federal Government doesn't have the constitutional power to be involved in the Marriage business.

I am a non-breeder by choice. I am straight. My best friends are lesbians and will be breeding. Just because someone is gay does not mean they are incapable of breeding. Some of you people are so freaking clueless...

TXHorseman

Just don't be offended when the local church won't let you get married there.

I have yet to see anyone demand that a church perform the ceremony... and I would be the first to stand up for the right of the church to deny service to anyone.

I see that as no different than a Jewish church denying a Christian wedding... a Protestant church denying an atheist wedding... or a Catholic church denying a wedding for non-pedophiles (cue rim-shot).

Wet Willy Comment collapsed by the community

Everything I'm seeing and hearing regarding overturning such laws points to an inescapable conclusion which is that most other unions will also fall into the category of equal treatment under the law. Polygamy and other types of unions will soon follow, and why not? You can't provide equal treatment under the constitution for one particular group while denying it to another group.

I cant agree enough. If we are going to take a stand for gays, and say its unconstitutional for them to get married, then we need to allow room for any future idea of marriage. Close family relations is Illegal, why ? Because of the risks of genetic disorders. Who are any of you to tell 2 people they can not have offspring because of the possible disorders ? Would you tell that to two mentally handicap people that they can not reproduce because they may have a chance of passing on some bad genes ? WHat if close relations dont have sex, they are fixed so they cant ( not like its your right to make them ) but lets just say they cant have off spring would you still deny them their right to marry ? For you pro gay marriage people out there, lets see how quick you are to set a double standard here.

Tom,

But the executive branch does not get to decided constitutionality, that is left for the judicial branch.

Correct, however it doesn't matter. This will be deemed unconstitutional. Everyone knows that. I'd rather err on the side of caution, in regards to trampling civil rights.

And if you believe that this decision makes it unconstitutional and shouldn't be defended by the DOJ, I hope you would be consistent in your belief the DOJ shouldn't be defending Obama care in court. (Which I know you aren't)

Problem. As I've repeated to you, AD NAUSEUM, there is such thing as the Commerce Clause. We won't get into here. You failed to provide a legal answer to my defense of ACA. I'm only being hypocritical, if I believe ACA is Unconstitutional. I don't. My being hypocritical isn't dependant on YOUR interpretation of the Consitution, it's dependant on MINE.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10901255-court-signals-entire-health-care-law-might-need-to-be-struck-down?__utma=154396583.1484684769.1337959327.1338483757.1338485992.14&__utmb=154396583.3.10.1338485992&__utmc=154396583&__utmx=-&__utmz=154396583.1337959327.1.1.utmcsr

There's the link to just on of the articles where I laid out my position.

So either you are a hypocrite or you are OK with the Party in Power deciding what laws should be upheld, and remember with that belief you party will not always be in power. It may or may not be the next election but there will come a time and I hope you won't complain when the other side is or isn't defending something you believe in.

The party in power doesn't decide what is/isn't Constitutional. The Constitution does. And that stays the same regardless. I would have no problem with either party not upholding DOMA or enacting ACA. In fact, ACA was originally a CONSERVATIVE idea, from the Heritage Foundation.

The Federal Government doesn't have the constitutional power to be involved in the Marriage business.

THAT'S why DOMA is Unconstitutional. We're trying to get the government OUT of marriage, and return it to the basic governance of informed capacity of the parties contracting.

I have read the red herring from I assume are Republicans that there are more important hings to be spending money on.

That maybe true in your eyes, however, if you hold that conviction to be true. Stop the hypocrisy and ell your own party to stop spending millions of dollars of tax payer money defending DOMA:

"House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it."

Believe, deny it, whatever you want to do but, God has removed His hand from this country.

I hope he removes the bigots who claim to follow the teachings of his son, next. Maybe he can plop them all down in a theocracy, like Iran.

Yes, yes, yes, yes!! These couples should not be denied benefits or any other rights. One more step towards treating our fellow human beings with dignity.

Find the pockets of joy!

Crossfit

By that logic, we should then ban ALL marriages... because they ALL might lead to your "slippery slope" argument. Straight marriage is obviously just the first step down your "slope".

For the record, I would fully support banning ALL marriages. I still see no reason for the government to require a legal contract be signed, by two people, simply because they decide to be monogamous.

Such a sad day. The US is determined to go the route of Sparta, of Rome and the Greeks......become the strongest, then turn lazy and immoral and fall to another country. Arent we supposed to learn from the past? All you need to do is go read a history book to figure out that this is just one more step in the wrong direction.

All you need to do is go read a history book to figure out that this is just one more step in the wrong direction.

How is this a step in the wrong direction again?

Indie,

Your semantics are kinda tiring. Divorce is bad, fathers not involved or supporting family is bad. Government should support one form of marriage, the one that benefits the family. Anything other than that (same-sex, different sex, multiple sex, fake sex and on and on) reamin silent on. If a man and womand cannot or chose not to have a family they don't recieve the benefits of those that do, but should recieve the benefits society afforded their spouse. Now, you can call me a bigot, because I dared post what 99% of all human history has beleived, 1/2 the country (dems and rep who signed DOMA) 1/2 of Europe and 95% of the rest of the world beleive.

sarah ,

"We are protected from what your God does or doesn't say, under our secular laws."

Intersesting post considering whom our founding documents say our rights (created equal) came from; just sayin.

lola007

Its such a sad day for the education system if that is what you think caused these countries to fall.

History Fail.

Tod-2791955

The constitution does not mention god. Not that it would matter if it did just wanted to point that out. Created/born which ever. I am religious and believe in equality. Its rather easy to separate church law from civic law.

"Anyone, such as Steve-2570999, who believes this is the same thing as not allowing black people to marry is misguided. The entire debate of gay marriage is based on whether you believe the premise that a person is born gay."

And years ago, when blacks were not allowed to marry whites, the belief was that blacks were somehow inferior to whites. THAT was an incorrect belief as well. There is sufficient evidence that sexual orientation is innate.

Sarah

"Correct, however it doesn't matter. This will be deemed unconstitutional. Everyone knows that. I'd rather err on the side of caution, in regards to trampling civil rights."

WHAT? you would rather err on the side of caution, yet you then go on to say.

"The party in power doesn't decide what is/isn't Constitutional. The Constitution does."

You are being the definition of hypocritical.

Currently DOMA is the law and the DOJ is required to uphold the law, until it is overturned by the supreme court. Just like they are doing with ObamaCare, most of us agree that DOMA is unconstitutional but not everybody, just like lots and lots of people think ObamaCare is one way or the other.

I HATE OBAMACARE and but yet I know the DOJ HAS to defend it and should be defending it. and that is what makes me not a hypocrite.

IndieParty,

I have yet to see anyone demand that a church perform the ceremony... and I would be the first to stand up for the right of the church to deny service to anyone.

The only thing I have seen along that line was the lesbian woman who was offended that the chruch wouldn't allow her to have communion at her Mother's funeral. Even though she was informed of this prior to the service. Kind of a dirt road, but the same prinicple involved.

Tod,

How does, "Their Creator", equal "Your God". I know who I believe my Creator was, and I'm guessing you believe yours was something/someone else.

That's why they didn't say "Endowed by our Judeo-Christian God". It' ambiguous, and NO WHERE, NO WHERE, in our Constitution does it mention anything about any Creator or God.

BUT, it does say this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof..."

Which means, I'm free from what your God, or ANYONE's God, "says".

lola007

The US is determined to go the route of Sparta, of Rome and the Greeks......become the strongest, then turn lazy and immoral and fall to another country.

Yes... NOW we are turning "immoral" and will fall to another country.

Not when we first arrived and committed genocide on an entire indigenous population, massacring millions of innocent women and children... and basking in the glory of their blood, only to celebrate the perpetrator as a hero.

Not when we decided to burn women alive, at the stake, because of a "witch" rumor... laughing at her screams of torment, and feeling validated in the embrace of a Christian religion that allowed this.

Not when we enslaved our fellow man, ripping him from his home and forcing him to work as our slave. Torturing these men on a daily basis while we raped their wives and children, simply because of the color of their skin. Once again, feeling validated and self-righteous in the comfort of a Christian religion that supported this behavior.

No, no, no... all THAT was perfectly fine. But now... NOW we are being "immoral". NOW, as we consider allowing two people to sign a government contract dealing with legal rights, now THAT is where you draw the line. Death, slaughter, genocide, torture, slavery... all perfectly fine, in your eyes. But allowing two people to sign a contract... an "immoral" sign of the end.

Are you f***ing serious? Can you even hear yourself talk?

All you need to do is go read a history book

Yes... go read a GOD DAMN history book.

I'm going to repost this because it bears repeating.

Back during and before the Civil War fundamentalists and evangelicals used scripture from the Bible to justify slavery. It's in there and according to the book of Leviticus it is okay to own and beat slaves. They justified owning black people by saying that the color of their skin was the "mark of Cain".

During and before women's sufferage fundamentalists and evangelicals used scripture from the Bible to justify making women second class citizens and denying them equal rights to men, including the right to vote. Even today certain sects still use scripture to try and make all women subserviant to men. After all there are a dozen or more passages that lay out unambiguously how women are inferior to men and should be subserviant to them, even though Jesus himself made it clear that in his eyes and the eyes of Heaven all are equal.

During prohibition fundamentalists and evangelicals used scripture from the Bible to justify changing secular law to make alcohol illegal, citing verses that state the sin of drunkenness. They tried, successfully, to make lawmakers think that alcohol was at the root of criminality and that by prohibiting it crime would disappear in the country overnight. Might I note that Jesus not only drank alcohol, but his first miracle was to turn water into wine.

Notice how all three of these instances in our nation's history turned out. Contemplate the historical outcomes of the previous examples and whether or not fundamentalists and evangelicals were really pragmatically right, or even morally right in their positions. Think about the kind of impact these positions had on the lives of countless people. Now, whether you agree with my sentiments or not, consider my next words very carefully: the gay rights issue is next.

Sarah, I agree with your 2.100 post completely.

I will say that while I don't believe in God, most of our founders were Christians and infused our country with lots of those beliefs.

Tom,

Oh my God...

I would only be hypocritical, if I thought BOTH of them were Unconstitutional, but WANTED ONE of them to be upheld, and the other not to be.

That's not the case. I want the Unconstitutional one NOT upheld, and the Constitutional one UPHELD. I believe it's the DOJ's job to uphold LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL laws (ACA) and NOT uphold UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL laws (DOMA). Ergo, I would be hypocritcal, only if I thought both were unconstitutional, but wanted ONE upheld.

I don't get why that's hard for you to understand.

TX

The only thing I have seen along that line was the lesbian woman who was offended that the chruch wouldn't allow her to have communion at her Mother's funeral.

Yes, I saw that.

Although I agree that it was within the right of the church to do so... my thoughts are that it was just a plain D*** move. I mean, it was her mother's funeral and they are going to be a complete a**hole like that?

But like I said, they have the right to do so... the hypocrisy of a child raping church doing that is another topic, but they do have the right.

Indie,

I do totally agree, BUT it is an example of what we are discussing. One could say, "It is our wedding and your going to be an a**hole???

@Tod, the Bible was written by men and an interpretation of God's will.

As a said before, nobody can speak for God nobody.

The bottom line, to gay marriage, always has been the financial end of it. A man who marries a man wants that mans Social Security and pension when he up and dies. How cool! Now we know SS will go broke at twice the speed. I always thought Procreation was the natural order of things. I can't figure out why people can't see that being physically attracted to the same sex is a birth defect of some sort. How can a man look at another mans butt hole or dick and get turned on?!

Go a head and flame away. It's not alright to be anti-gay marriage only pro marriage so I expect to be bashed for my personal views on this subject. Have at it!!!!

So the DOJ is not defending the laws passed by congress? Are you f'n kidding me, they don't have the POWER to decide that, that is for the judicial branch of the government.

Of course the DOJ has the power to decide which laws to defend. That's like saying that you don't have the right to not mount a defense if you were being. Don't confuse defense of the law (which the DOJ won't do) with enforcement of the law (which the DOJ continues to do).

well, i'll respond to you Brandon,

i've never read such, brainwashed, misguided rhetoric in my life. let me take this slow so you can follow. if you believe that God is omnipotent, then you must believe that He doesn't make mistakes. by your way of thinking, any person born anyway except absolutely perfect is a spawn of the devil. remember, children are born everyday with birth defects and illnesses. many, many children develop illnesses like autism after they are born. Are these children spawns of the devil, since well, God couldn't or wouldn't create something that isn't perfect? that sounds more like Hitler than God. or maybe, God being the consciousness of the universe and the author of all physical laws has allowed the universe to grow in its own way and what happens, happens. and He doesn't make mistakes, so a child who is born homosexual is just God allowing the universe to take its course, it's not a mistake.

now, if that doesn't resonate with you, let me try another avenue. Jesus, who was SUPPOSED to be the embodiment of God on earth, if that's what you believe, said something that you should seriously go back and read and try to understand. go the St. Matthew Chptr 22 and start reading at verse 34-40.see, i read the Bible AND i'm a liberal and i haven't been struck by lightning nor do i feel any burning under my feet. i'll give you a quick run down of what it says: the pharisees in order to tempt Jesus asked him "which is the great commandment in the law?" and Jesus answered, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. this is the first and great commandment. and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS." now, it doesn't matter what some obscure prophet in some obscure book in the old testament said, it doesn't matter what Paul said, if you TRULY believe in the teaching of CHRIST then it is commanded to you to Love everyone and that means no judgement against those whose beliefs you don't agree with. JESUS, who let me reiterate was supposed to be God on earth, said "do not judge lest ye be judged." it is not your place to decide who is going to be condemned or not. Judgement is God's and God's alone.

Religion and churches and dogma were all created by humans. it was our way of understanding the universe around us and it has been going on for millions of years, long before men started following the ideal of a monotheistic religion. dogma was created by the hierarchy to keep the multitudes in line, to keep the peace and of course to feed their own need for power. most of the Bible is us justifying our actions against one another and laying the blame on God. a lot of the Bible is history with a spin on the side of the people who wrote it. case in point, the Muslims rewrote that portion of the Old Testament that satisfied their needs and created the Koran. the Mormons rewrote Christianity to suit their ideals. the protestants changed catholicism to suit their purpose. it goes on and on. The philosophy of the Bible is stated very clearly in what Jesus said above. if we all followed the Golden Rule, imagine what kind of world we would live in! we would realize the beauty and the harmony of the universe here. i wouldn't be having to try and explain to you why you're wrong. heck, this whole article and conversation would be unnecessary. but, we are human and we are fraught with human inequities that some of us are trying to live without in our journey to find the enlightenment that is God. we ALL know how to do this, we just, to use your word, CHOOSE not to.

i believe in God. but, i believe that God is not some guy sitting on a throne in some netherworld ready to strike us dead if we don't adhere to your particular form of religion. God describes himself as "the alpha and the omega. the beginning and the end." God only appears as forms of energy, once as a man who turns out to be an apparition. God is the consciousness of the universe, not a man, not human. the ideals that are set down in the bible are there to help us understand that in order for us to work in harmony with the rest of the universe, we must not put forth negative energy. everything in the universe works in harmony with everything else. everything moves towards the positive. negative feelings and actions works against this and therefore against God. if you truly believe in God, you must be willing to accept EVERYTHING that God has created.

Nice try Sarah,

Yes "todays interpretation" of God or religion is ambiguous. From your past posts I have no doubt that you are well versed in law, but you are either being disingenuous or ignorant concerning who our founding fathers were refering to when they said creator. Even Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (openly non-Christian diests) refer to our country's foundations/ laws and continued success being linked to our Judeo-Christian God. Most of the other founding author's would curl your hair with their blatant, over-the-top Jesus talk. I actually think you know this.

I also think you know that our founding father's main religious concerns were that specific denominations (Christian) were not given preference or power in government the way the were in Europe. Agreed that that has morphed, but their origins are purpose were undeniable the exact opposite of what is today refferred to as seperation of church and state.

There is todays law and interprertation, and then there is the clear understanding of where our laws came from. You may not like it, and many are attempting to change them, but please don't pretend they were different than what they actually were.

The bottom line, to gay marriage, always has been the financial end of it. A man who marries a man wants that mans Social Security and pension when he up and dies. How cool! Now we know SS will go broke at twice the speed.

Let's look at this way. Let's say all those gay men decided that they will now marry women (and vice versa for lesbians). Wouldn't the SS funds be depleted at the same rate? What you seem to be saying is that this country is depending on having gays to whom benefits can be denied in order to control its budget.

Tod

(1) You still did not answer my question: How are the economic wins and money spent in small businesses, as PROVEN in states that legalized it, "silly"?

You mentioned a "benefit to society"... well money spent in the economy, particularly small businesses, is a benefit. How are those FACTS "silly"?

Government should support one form of marriage, the one that benefits the family.

(2) You still have not provided factual data that supports this argument... why should government support ANY marriage? And why should they support this one?

Where is the factual, measurable evidence that PROVES that society benefits from the government supporting this? I thought Republicans always say that the government screws up everything they touch... so why do you want them involved?

(3) Where are your protests against divorce? Where are you signs, your threats of hellfire, your TV commercials against it?

You seem to have a problem answering questions... what's wrong? Not man enough to answer? Too scared?

Sarah,

"I would only be hypocritical, if I thought BOTH of them were Unconstitutional, but WANTED ONE of them to be upheld, and the other not to be."

Both Laws are currently constitutional. So you are deciding what laws should and shouldn't be upheld and neither you or I or the DOJ/President gets to decide that.

"I want the Unconstitutional one NOT upheld, and the Constitutional one UPHELD."

see above comment

"I believe it's the DOJ's job to uphold LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL laws "

see above comment

"Ergo, I would be hypocritcal, only if I thought both were unconstitutional, but wanted ONE upheld."

Ego, by definition you are being hypocritical.

"I don't get why that's hard for you to understand."

Really? You don't think others can see that if you like the Law (and think it is Constitutional) that you are OK with it being treated differently than if you don't like the Law (and think it is UN-Constitutional)

Tod, our laws are not based in any Judeo-Christian beliefs, or any other religious beliefs. They are based on, among other things, English Common Law, and documents like the Magna Carta.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

BTW, Tod, the "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT the basis of our laws; it is merely the document which created us as a separate nation from England. The Constitution -- which IS the basis of all of our laws -- does not mention God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity, for very good reasons.

So do most believe all of DOMA is UN-constitutional? or the part about Man and Woman or that states need not recognize such unions just because other states?

And if the Supreme court deems the man and woman part UN-constitutional and not the part about states not recognizing unions from other states, will that be enough for you?

Thanks Erin fro clearing that up! I found created once in the Constitution and it was referring to elective office.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created....."

Tod-2791955 I think this is called a civics education failure on your part.

Tom,

Only if you believe that something is only Constitutional or Unconstitutional based on what the Government says. In which case, were Jim Crow laws Constitutional when they were being upheld? Just because a law in passed or enacted, or enforced, doesn't make it Constitutional. Whether it fits into the bounds of the Constitution does.

I don't LIKE ACA, I would LIKE a single payer system (AND I SAID THAT AD NAUSEUM IN THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE ABOUT ACA), but what I like or don't like doesn't deem something Unconstitutional, just like whether or not a law is enacted doesn't deem it Constitutional.

You said earlier that you thought DOMA was Unconstitutional, then in your last post, you state that it is currently Constitutional. It either is or it isn't. Nothing written in DOMA will change when the inevitable ruling overturning it occurs. It will have always either been Constitutional or not.

Tom,

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.

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, for DOMA to be Constitutional, someone has to answer these questions...

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?

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, my opinion doesn't matter (I do believe it is UN-constitutional) but it is currently the law of the land and there is 2 ways about getting current laws changed, though elections and though the supreme court.

The judicial branch is not supposed to have such power to do what ever they wish. Its all about checks and balance. The state can decide if they wish to accept gay marriage or not. Dont live in a pro gay state, then move to one and be happy there.

I love when people use the slippery slope argument to try to argue against gay marriage.

The slippery slope argument I hear, always goes something like this:
"If we let gay people get married, what's to stop other groups from wanting to marriage rights (like polygamists, incest, etc.). If we gave one group rights, then we would have to give all groups rights."

One of the many problems with this argument is that you would have to apply the same logic to opposite sex marriage. Giving heterosexual couples special rights for marriages makes other groups want get marriage rights as well. And if we give one group rights, then we should give all groups rights. I guess that means that we should eliminate heterosexual marriage, then, right? Or, does your logic ONLY apply when it's something you disagree with but not when it's something you agree with?

I also love that some conservatives are hard up to talk about following the Constitution -- but that only apparently applies when it comes to what they agree with. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, DoMA violates the constitution in several respects. If you actually cared about the Constitution, then you would apply it regardless of whether or not you agree with the issue at hand.

j70141,

That is an entirely different matter if you are talking about forcing funding for contraception. The Gov did not force the Church to change their beliefs they just said that if you want to run a business you have to follow the same rules as every other business does. Religiously run business want to be able to bring t heir religion into the politics of the work place, it does not work like that. Business and religion are two separate entities and when the Church crosses over into the other they are, within the confines of that business, subject to business laws that include laws that they are normally excluded from.

For example they cannot not hire someone because they are Gay or because they are an Atheist. They cannot deny medical coverage based on their own belief system because the people working for them may not follow their religion and even some that do probably do not follow all of the stupid things they say you should do. I have known many, many, Christians that use contraception. I actually have yet to find even one Christian in my area in Arizona, nor anyone I know on Facebook or have on my IM programs, that has not used birth control or a condom at some point in their lives.

Churches want to say that their rights of exemption are carried over into what ever they have a hand in but that is just not true. That is all that whole spat was saying. "Liberals" were not trying to change the Church they just wanted them to play by the same rules as every other business does.

Why should Church-run businesses be special or get special treatment?

Crossfit,

Your position would have held water, in let's say 1860. Then we passed a little something called the 14th Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights to the states, gave us equal protection under the law, and became a true Republic, ceaseing to allow states to vote on civil rights. It like, closed the last loophole. In fact, since the passing of the 14th Amendment, the 10th Amendment (or state's rights Amendment) has been pretty much null and void. In fact a case involving it, hasn't even come before SCOTUS since the '60's where they used it to try and uphold segregation.

In case you don't know, they failed.

You changed the subject, but I will bite, I believe Marriage is UN-Constitutional I don't think the Government should be involved in it at all, only there to enforce contracts.

And by your argument if I want to get into a contract with 3 woman and 2 men it is my basic civil right?

I have read many of these comments that have been made and am just astonished at some of them. 1 There is no such thing as Freedom FROM Religion in the Constitution it is Freedom OF Religion there for by that prevents the government of the United States from being the Leader of any religious sect. By not being able to be the leader of a religious sec the US Government would be unable to define religious matters (Who one marries, dates what religion they are, weather they believe in Jesus, Alla, Mohammad to name a few. The practice of religious marriage in fact Pre dates any law requiring a certificate of marriage so there is a problem with what is going on. Sara you are all about arguing that it is freedom From religion so thereby saying religion doesn't matter. You fail to point out in your argument that the basics of all laws come from religious belief. Here we have strict laws about murder but in say Pakistan it is perfectly legal to perform what is refer to as mercy killing of family member for dishonoring their families (a religious belief) so if we remove all hint's of religion from law then we become lawless. The 10 commandments are ingrained into our laws. Inevediably we will be the demise of ourselfs without a clear course to follow we will suffer. There is not a person alive that dosn't belive in something and there by could argue you are pushing your religon on us. Athism is a religon and has it's belifes, Scientoligy is a religon and has it's set of belifes so we will never have a governmen free from religon.

We aren't Pakistan. We are America and we (the good ones at least) believe murder is bad....so is discrimination. Atheism is NOT a religion either...it's the lack of belief.

You changed the subject, but I will bite, I believe Marriage is UN-Constitutional I don't think the Government should be involved in it at all, only there to enforce contracts.

You realize that marriage is essentially a contract, right? How do you think inheritance and powers of attorney work?

The 10 commandments are ingrained into our laws.

Where's the criminal law for disrespecting your mother and father? I don't see any.

I don't see any of the other items mentioned in Leviticus being outlawed either, like the consumption of fat and blood.

I'd never want to marry another guy but --

If a same-sex couple gets married, what business is it of mine? How does it affect my life? I'm really curious, because I feel really stupid not being able to find any correllations between their lives and mine.

Let Americans live free - or don't.

"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. render unto God that which is God's." Jesus was trying to tell us that there IS a difference between civil law and God's law and that we do need to abide by both. the laws set down in the constitution, state and local are based in this country on "Caesar's," meaning the civil laws of man. we make murder a crime, not because it is morally wrong although we may all agree to that premise, but because it denies the victim his/her civil right to live! let me give you a case in point that shows the difference. in california, several years ago, a man from one of the balkan countries, i think albania or afghanistan, killed his wife and some of his children because he thought his wife was cheating on him. his MORALITY gave him every right to kill her and his children because they were her seed, because she had shamed his family. he was, of course, arrested, tried and sent to prison for life. so, by your way of thinking, if only morality and religious belief should be the basis of all law, then whose morality should we go by? the majority? the party in power? the rich? the religious right? the religious left? Mine? you CANNOT, let me repeat that C-A-N-N-O-T legislate morality, because morality is SUBJECTIVE!!! that is why our laws are and must be decided on CIVIL liberties. just because in the past, since well, time immemorial man has based laws on religion, doesn't make it right! it makes it archaic. the constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. we have the RIGHT to live our lives in peace and without fear. anyone who tries to take that from us commits a crime whether it is killing, stealing, etc.

the universe, as i said before works in perfect harmony. think about it for a moment, everything on this planet works and lives in harmony with everything else. even the storms that ravage the land allow new growth and life afterwards. volcanoes create fertile land. fires rid the land of the old and dry allowing for new, plentiful life. animals live in harmony with the planet, listening to the signals that nature gives them, each level of life giving life to another. the only aspect of our planet that is not in harmony with everything else is US. you gotta wonder why we are here, maybe on purpose to see whether we could learn to accept our part in the universe and live in harmony, maybe it was just dumb, bad luck of this beautiful planet that it gave rise to such a destructive force. Man is not inherently evil, he is just inherently ignorant and stubborn. the truth is right in front of us, but as Jesus said, 'you have eyes, yet you cannot see. you have ears, but you will not listen.' the american indians, although no better than anyone else, at least understood that harmony with the earth was necessary to their continued existence. when will we learn, that tolerance, altruism and working with nature instead of against it will ensure OUR existence? We CAN do this. Morally, we need to let each man/woman to live their lives as they choose as long as they are not infringing upon the freedom of others-that's called tolerance. you don't have to agree with it, but you have to have respect for it. and if you believe someone is going to burn in hell, well, so what? you have that right, but you don't have the right to make their lives unhappy just to satisfy your beliefs. we CAN live in harmony with nature. there are ways RIGHT NOW that we can raise enough food to feed the world and not suck up all the water, or poison it the way we are right now. we CAN provide energy without poisoning our air. we can live along wild animals by giving them the right to their own spaces. We CAN do this, but there are those in whom greed and arrogance are the driving forces. unfortunately, most of them have a lot of money and the rest of them are as ignorant as a piece of wood. Jesus gave us the answer 2000 years ago. Buddha said it 3000 years ago. the Koran states it. the Golden Rule. it is so easy to understand and give lip service to but, so impossible for most to live by. i live my life FREE from YOUR religion. i live my life with my OWN connection to God and you can't honestly say that you know or have any absolute proof that i am wrong, because YOU are not God. you don't speak for God, you speak for yourself and your proof is a book that is NOT regarded as absolute proof except by those who adhere to it. i could say the secrets of the universe are written in the latest edition of Betty Crocker's Cookbook. that doesn't make it true.

Ok Indie,

If I'm reading correctly, you want me to answer:

1) Why not let government support gay marriage after all the 2% (actually 1% because it two people) who now will get married will infuse the wedding industry with money and boost our economy. Yeah, thats silly is the only answer ur gonna get.

2) Where is your scientific evidence that male-female-children is the best form of family; aside from the obvious love between a person and their genetic offspring and the even more obvious fact that nature created it that way, studies have been done on children's development between 0-4yrs (most agree a crucial developmental period). Those studies point to the benefits of both a masculine figure (child tenses up and expects more roughousing, helping the muscular, reflexive and brain development) and a feminine touch (nurture, comfort affection).

I have been teaching high school for 6 years, in those years I and my collegues have all noticed one common denominator in the students that struggle (generally speaking of course) fatherlessness, period! I am not blaming single moms, the ones I am in constant contact with are doing everything in their power to better the lives of their children, but there are serious issues stemming form the father' indifference.

3) Why am I not holding up signs and screaming about divorce; cause I don't do that for any cause. I speak my mind when opportunity arises. I don't like divorce, it hurts kids! But I am more concerned about fathers checking out on their responsibilities and blaming their irresponsble parenting on their former spouses (or vice versa).

Riddle me this indie;

Why are those who believe as I do, as those who overwhelmingly passed DOMA do, as 1/2 the U.S. population does, as 1/2 of Europe does, as 95% of the rest of the world does, and as 99.9% of all human history has labeled by your ilke as out of touch bigots?

Eric:

"@Tod, the Bible was written by men and an interpretation of God's will.

As a said before, nobody can speak for God nobody"

Evidently "nobody" but you, it seems. You do see that don't you? You have declared that God is bound by your proclamation that He may not speak thru anyone, "nobody" right? Thus you alone have made yourself God's spokesman. Take it up with Him, cause it's not my fight.

Think things thru Einstein

And by your argument if I want to get into a contract with 3 woman and 2 men it is my basic civil right?

If it is a civil right, then it is being denied to everyone (so it probably isn't a right). Therefore, you can't use the Equal Protection clause to argue for it.

remember when most of the world thought the world was flat? Yea that was pretty interesting...

Tod

1) You asked for a societal benefit... I provided a measurable, fiscal and economic benefit. Now you tout that as "silly" for no other reason than you "think" it is. Regardless of how little you think it will affect the economy, that is actual money you are withholding from small businesses... thus, you are anti-business.

2) You assume one can only love their genetic offspring... I have a feeling parents who adopt would argue. But that is your opinion.

In reference to your comment that "nature created it that way"... where is your proof? In nature, animals routinely practice homosexual tendencies. In nature, some animals reject their young, while others have been seen to come in and "adopt" or take the place of the parent. Both of these FACTS suggest that homosexuality does occur in nature and that offspring can be cared for by non-genetic parents. That is what happens in NATURE... not a choice, a natural phenomenon. Thus, your comment about "nature created" is completely false.

Furthermore, there is the mathematical analysis of the exponential growth capabilities of humans, matched with the finite size of the earth. It is not unrealistic to assume a natural buffer will occur, limiting the growth potential of a population to maintain the natural balance of things. This buffer would be humans who DO NOT procreate and add to the population problem, once again supporting the "natural" theory.

What is your evidence that it is NOT natural? And I want evidence, not a 2000 year old book, written by nomads who believed the world was flat.

3) So you don't hold signs like the rest of the hateful bigots... here's a cookie.

To answer your question: Because history is FULL of people like YOU. People who used the Bible to defend genocide in the crusades. People who use the Bible to defend burning women alive. People who used the Bible to defend slavery. People who used the Bible to defend murder.

The majority agreed with all of them... all of those people who performed those heinous acts had majority support. They were wrong then, filled with hate and bigotry... just as you are now.

Unless, you believe they were all correct and should have been allowed to continue their slavery and killings... because the majority agreed with them, at the time.

Travelinfotog: First of all, not all states require you to have auto insurance...in fact, even in California, you don't actually have to have insurance. You DO, however, need to post a bond to cover any damage, etc. that you might cause. Secondly, auto insurance and health insurance are apples and oranges....if someone doesn't have auto insurance, the taxpayers aren't put on the spot to pay their bills! When someone doesn' t have health insurance and go to an ER for some reason....and if they can't pay....guess who foots the bill through higher insurance premiums? See, apples and oranges! Personally, I'd rather my taxpayer money go for something different than paying some irresponsible person's medical because (1) they don't have insurance; (2) they are too irresponsible to buy it even when they can afford it; and (3) low-income individuals aren't given some assistance in purchasing low-cost health insurance!

The problem is that most people today don't understand that the healthcare bill that we have will do more to HELP us than hinder us.....healthcare is going up and up, and the reason is because our money is going to pay for uninsured individuals.....why not allow them the option of purchasing low-cost health insurance so that OUR insurance premiums will go down? Why is that so difficult to understand?

Indie,

You sure do love to blather on non-sensically, But I really do only have a finite amount of time to waste.

You have a right to hate, you have a right to disagree, but you do not have a right to inject your religious views into laws. Supporting religion in our laws makes you truly UNAMERICAN, and the real threat to our country. If you so choose to live somewhere and want you religion to rule, move to a country that does so.

Gays and the NAMBLA hypocrisy

All we seem to hear about these days from the gay community is 'civil rights' and 'discrimination'. Well this is quite hollow words when NAMBLA is their dirty little secret. NAMBLA is a GAY society, men whom have consentual sex with underage boys. The gay community should be NAMBLA's best friend, confidant and ally, they should be working hand in hand to change this societies sexual morals and laws to make the NAMBLA goal legal. This is exactly what the gay community did to attain their current status and now are demading their 'civil rights'. The gulible sheep of this society baaaa right along with them and believe everything they assert.

At this point, however, any gay person will vociferously deny NAMBLA is a valid argument against the gay community and their forcing themselves on our society through legal means. This is the hypocrisy, the gays want to be seen as everyones' equal, and not be discriminated against, yet they discriminate against NAMBLA, their fellow gays who are just trying to do the same thing, have the same goals and desire the same acceptance. How can gays discriminate? They are hypocrites to discriminate against NAMBLA. This goes for any other form of gay 'lifestyle' that they abhor.

My point in all this is, the gay community forcing themselves on our society is just as abhorrent to straight people who aren't 'gullible sheep' as NAMBLA is if they forced themselves on the gay community.

We need to draw the line, marriage is for a man, and a woman. Let the gays have their 'civil rights' but designate it something else to preserve the dignity of men and women for millenia who have engaged in the union.

Phil, NAMBLA is a pedophile organization, NOT a gay organization. The mainstream gay organizations disassociated from NAMBLA long ago. NAMBLA has since gone underground.

And you do not own the word "marriage".

Tod,

You sure do love to blather on non-sensically, But I really do only have a finite amount of time to waste.

The typical response from someone who has no factual evidence to back-up their position. What's wrong? Did my big words confuse you? I'll try to bring it down to high-school level next time.

ErinNJ

Phil, NAMBLA is a pedophile organization, NOT a gay organization. The mainstream gay organizations disassociated from NAMBLA long ago. NAMBLA has since gone underground.

And you do not own the word "marriage".

Neither do you!

Here is part of the wikipedia article covering NAMBLA:

NAMBLA has been defended by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg^[6][7] and gay rights activist Harry Hay

NAMBLA's website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end "the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships."[9] According to the NAMBLA, some of the organization's primary positions are:

• Supporting and promoting man/boy relationships: they hold that when consensual these relationships are not harmful or child sexual abuse.^[10] One study they cite is the controversial Rind et al. paper.^[11]
• Age-of-consent reform: what NAMBLA describes as "empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual."

Ok Erin, they want the same things that gay people do, and you should be supporting them hand and foot! Their goal is to 'feel good' just like the gays, and have legal standing to boot.

The men involved are STILL gay!! The article I posted is STILL valid despite your response!

This is a fair & just ruling. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government has no right to interfere with any state regarding the definition of marriage. I agree with that.

Right now, 30 states have decided that marriage is between one man & one woman.

Erin,

The men involved may be pedophile, but it is gay pedophilia, that makes it still GAY. It also shows that you STILL are discriminatory against another group who wants 'civil rights' I don't care that the gay community has disassociated themselves, it is STILL a GAY issue.

WRONG, Phil; pedophiles are attracted to the age, not the gender. They will prey on whichever sex is available.

BTW, here is the rest of that Wikipedia article regarding the LGBT organizations' repudiation of NAMBLA:

Relations with LGBT organizations

The first documented opposition from LGBT organizations to NAMBLA occurred in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979.^[22]

In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters.^[22] The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival.^[22] In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.^[23]

By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"^[24] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.^[24]

In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

In 1994 NAMBLA, along with many members of the Gay Liberation Front participated in the "The Spirit of Stonewall" march which commenorated the 1969 Stonewall Riots.^[25]

In 1994, Pat Califia^[26] argued that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA, however, Califia has since completely repudiated his earlier support for NAMBLA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla#Relations_with_LGBT_organizations

Take religious beliefs out of a conservative's motivation to argue against gay marriage, and the conservative would lose the argument.

Tom,

The answer to your polygamy question, and why gay marriage won't lead to it, is the fact that there is no answer to my question number two. When you can answer question number two, you can worry about polygamy.

Sarah states:

The act of marriage essentially falls under contract law...

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.

Sarah is correct. It is a contract regulated by the various states. It is not a realm of the Federal government.

9 states have decided the marriage contract comes with community property rules. It is not the role of the federal government to interfere with those states definition of marriage.

30 states have decided that marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. It is not the role of the federal government to interfere with those states definition of marriage.

ErinNJ

WRONG, Phil; pedophiles are attracted to the age, not the gender. They will prey on whichever sex is available.

Ok, so how does this remove the 'discrimination'? You ARE discriminating! You have no basis to claim 'civil rights' when you openly discriminate against another organization of a 'moral' nature. And this is all it is, pedophiles are 'moral criminals' like gays used to be. The gay community politically manipulated the laws and got their moral standing whitewashed. Calling the pedophiles worse than gay is like the pot calling the kettle black! All the pedophiles need to do is change the laws, like the gays did. Remember Rome?? They had pedophiles commonplace. You should be encouraging all the pedophiles to 'come out of the closet' and join the world! YOU DID!

Phil, gays were never "criminals," since homosexuality has always been legal in the US.

BTW, Phil, I'm a straight, married woman who supports equality -- but how like an ignorant bigot to ASSume I'm gay because I support their cause.

One more thing: same-sex marriage was legal in ancient Rome -- until Christianity took over. The empire also fell after Christianity stepped in.

On the topic of the non-enforcement of DOMA here's a thought

By not enforcing it doesn't that essentially serve to kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it? I can only imagine if the DOJ were to attempt to strike down a state law allowing gay marriage that state would inevitably sue the national government forcing the Supreme Court's hand and create a situation where they had to make a final decision on its constitutionality or not.

Essentially by not enforcing DOMA or striking it down the government is agreeing in it's implicit legality regardless of whether it is constitutional or not.

Well Sarah what's your opinion?

Anyone else feel free to comment too, I'm more than open to troll responses.

JustRad, the President and Attorney General have explicitly said that they would not continue to defend DOMA, but that until it is repealed or overturned, they will enforce it. They are two different things.

I don't see how that's not kicking the can down the road. That just speaks to me of dodging the issue.

JustRad ~ What the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said is that this is not an issue for the federal government. This is an issue for the individual states. States rights are protected by the 10th amendment, and as Sarah has stated, it has always been the various states that have issued a marriage license, never the church, never the federal government.

In Tennessee, for example, the State Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This was decided by a vote of the people - 81% of the voters decided that this is the way Tennesseans want things. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agrees that the federal government cannot butt into the affairs of contractual agreements as determined by Tennessee, or any other state.

This is a good decision.

9 states have decided the marriage contract comes with community property rules. It is not the role of the federal government to interfere with those states definition of marriage.

30 states have decided that marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. It is not the role of the federal government to interfere with those states definition of marriage.

Except for one small problem. I'll use my sister and brother-in-law as examples. They got married in Illinois. And now live in New York. They file their state tax forms as "married." And they can because New York recognizes the proceedings that occurred in Illinois. If it had happened the other way around, where my sister and brother-in-law got married in New York and then moved to Illinois, they would file their taxes as "married" because Illinois recognizes the marriage. But New York has marriage equality, now. And if my brother-in-law were a woman, Illinois would not recognize their marriage. Thus violating the Constitution - Article IV, Section 1 - Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. So by leaving marriage to the States, a couple married in one State could find themselves un-married because they moved to a State that doesn't recognize their marriage.

I'll give another example, Thomas. Joe gets a Real Estate License in Tennessee. He is licensed and authorized to deal in real estate in Tennessee.

Joe moves to California. Joe now finds himself unlicensed and unable to conduct real estate business in California. Now he has to get a California real estate license.

By leaving real estate licensing to the States, a realtor in one state could find themselves not a realtor because they moved to a State that doesn't recognize his license.

Actually, this is the case. And it is constitutional, because the federal government is not in charge of licensing real estate agents. Nor should they be.

Real estate is a specious argument. The point is that as of right now any legal hetero-sexual marriage performed in one State, is automatically accepted in every other and is given Federal benefits. Full Faith and Credit. But, because of the sex/gender of one (or both, if you will) of the participants, some States will not recognize the legal marriages performed in another State, nor does the Federal Government. Lack of Full Faith and Credit.

Your argument would hold up if "Bob" and "Lisa" (a hypothetical couple) got married in Massachusetts and then moved to Tennessee, where they then had to register for a marriage license from Montana. If they lived in Texas for 10 years and now have been in Montana for 2, how long have they been married? Because they never had to get a marriage license in Tennessee, because Tennessee accepted the marriage license from Massachusetts, they would still be listed as being married for 12 years. If Bob now dies of a heart-attack, Lisa will get widow's benefits from Social Security because they have been married for more than 10 years.

Now, let's change our couple from "Bob" and "Lisa" to "Beth" and "Lisa". Still all the other parameters apply. When they moved to Tennessee, they ceased to be married. The IRS never recognized their marriage. Widow's benefits? Never existed.

The Federal Government may not be in direct charge of State marriage licenses, but by the IRS acknowledging them (married, filing jointly; married, filing separately), and by the Constitution's requirement of Full Faith and Credit, the Fed's are involved in marriage. And the reason why your real estate license doesn't carry like a marriage license is because a real estate license is not a judicial proceeding like a marriage license. Marriage, as registered with a State, (because they can be done by Justices of the Peace - i.e. a type of judge) is a judicial proceeding.

States recognize birth certificates, death certificates, marriage licenses, legal name changes, driver's licenses, etc. of other States because they are public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings and the Full Faith and Credit clause requires it.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could have said that DOMA was illegal because it violated the civil rights of the people involved.

That didn't happen. DOMA was declared illegal because it violated the rights of the states under the 10th amendment. It is only the states that can define marriage, not the federal government, according to the ruling issued.

Thomas, the supreme court has already ruled that a court judgment issued in one state is not enforceable in another, where the other state has a different legal standard. McElmoyle v. Cohen

Freedman,

You forgot one very big point... It IS the job of the federal government to ensure equal protection under the law. That's why the 14th Amendment is in the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that civil rights AREN'T left for the states to decide.

The government, both states and federal, are contradicting themselves left and right, because everyone knows DOMA is Unconstitutional, but no one wants to deal with it.

Sarah, maybe it is unconstitutional. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals certainly thinks so, but not on the basis you put forth. This is clearly a ruling in favour of the 10th Amendment.

Sorry, freedman1, but when it comes to marriage, Loving v Virginia basically made marriage a "full faith and credit" rule with NO restrictions.

As for McElmoyle, if you read it, it says that the judgement was enforceable, however, the State of Georgia had a Statute of Limitations on enforcement, and that limitation had passed. The judgement was valid, just no longer enforceable by the State. Marriage licenses are for lifetime or until dissolution (divorce) or the death of one of the parties. Therefore, there is no Statute of Limitations regarding enforcement. As such marriages are given full faith and credit.

I did read it. The Georgia law trumped the South Dakota law. Not because the South Dakota law was invalid, but because the plaintiff was under the jurisdiction of Georgia.

Look, there are a lot of legal issues involved. But this is a licensing issue, and this ruling says nothing about civil rights - it talks about the right of states as opposed to the federal government. Each state has the ability to define marriage, and the federal government has no right to define it in lieu of the states. That is the ruling in a nutshell.

To date, 30 states have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The federal government has never issued a marriage license, I don't think. That is the realm of the state, whether we are speaking about community property, or defining licensing eligibility. In Tennessee, by Constitutional Amendment, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. The federal government has no ability to alter that definition within the borders of the state of Tennessee.

I support the decision rendered by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Indieparty

What is your evidence that it is NOT natural? And I want evidence, not a 2000 year old book, written by nomads who believed the world was flat.

Does it matter how old the book is ? Its recorded history. WHat in the world do you think people might say in 2000 years from now ? That Hitler never existed, that the USA never had a constitution or a government, or that yourself and I never existed even if they could read these threads 2000 years from now. We would be just stupid human beings to those people 2000 years form now for whats in science books now. . What do you have to say about that ? Also the bible wasnt written by Nomads, so your just tossing out rhetoric and mindless Dogma. The bible already talked about The circle of the earth, also we already knew about hydrologic cycle. Its quite amazing what we already knew if you actually read and know everything about the bible.

The earth is round!

You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!

In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here are two related Bible verses that were written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.

His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:

Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!

In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

3. The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed the total was 1,005. Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars. Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:

"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).

He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (Genesis 15:5, NIV).

4. The Bible stated the existence of valleys and springs in the seas: Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans. But the Bible always knew:

"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. " (Genesis 7:11, NIV).

5. The Bible stated that kind words and laughter are good for one's health: In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person's body that can contribute to one's health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3000 years ago when the Bible's book of Proverbs was recorded:

"Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24, NIV).

"A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones." (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).

6. The Bible stated that stars differ from one another centuries before scientists reached the same conclusion: Today we know that the stars in the skies are very different from one another, that they are made up of differing concentrations of different elements, and that they vary in their sizes, their ages and in their proximity to the earth. But the ancient people had no way to prove this. Even so, Paul, who received many insights from Jesus, wrote a passage about 2000 years ago in the Bible's book of 1 Corinthians that said that the stars in the heavens did indeed differ from one another:

"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Corinthians 15:41). God used "anesthesia" before it was even discovered:

gen. 2:21, "so the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep ; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs..."

God commanded the hebrews to cleanse themselves with fresh water even before the discovery of bacteria(God is in the tomorrow already!)

lev. 15:13, "...he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean."

I am a nurse, and if we have patients with contagious disease or condition we isolate them. but God commanded this a long time ago:

lev. 13:46, "as long as he has the infection, he remains unclean. he must live alone . he must live outside the camp.

why do health officials quarantine infectious individuals? so they won't spread infection. God knew it even before they did!

The bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:

jer. 31:35, "thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea and its waves roar..."

The bible describes the circulation of atmosphere:

ecc. 1:6, "the wind goes toward the south and turns around to the north, the wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit."

The bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:

job 28:25, "to establish the weight for a wind and apportion the waters by measure."

lev.17:11 describes the value of blood, "for the life of the flesh is in the blood..."

The bible describes something like a television, probably a satellite TV that will allow everyone to see a single event:

rev. 11:19, "...then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues and nations will see their dead bodies for three and one half days..."

6 DAY CREATION...

GOD WAS TAKING HIS TIME If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the change takes 40 million years, we call it evolution. We often hear that science has proved evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory does conflict with creation. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept Biblical creation. Surprised?

The theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man). Genesis, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. Genesis chapter one states 10 times that life forms can only reproduce after their own kind (ape to ape, man to man).

All the observable facts of science strongly support the Bible's claim that it is impossible for one kind to reproduce a different kind. The truth is, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support evolution from any area of science, just theory and a wild imagination!

But if the Bible is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove biblical creation wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, not even one missing link has ever been found. Has it ever occurred to you that this is the reason why scientists refer to them as missing links?

Even Charles Darwin realized the difficulty missing links gave his theory. Darwin wrote in his book, Origin Of The Species, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The reason we have never found any missing links is quite simple. Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong!

Experts tricked for 40 years! In 1912, Arthur Woodward announced to the world that he had found the missing link between ape and man. Piltdown Man, as he called it, consisted of a jaw bone and a piece of skull which he estimated to be over 500,000 years old! However, in 1953, when the new fluoride dating process was applied to the bones, scientists were shocked to learn that the jaw bone was less than 50 years old.

Only then did they notice that the bones and teeth had been treated with salts and filed to make them appear old and primitive. In other words, Piltdown Man was a complete fraud. Take note Bible student! The world's foremost scientific experts had been fooled for over 40 years! (Read 1 Corinthians 3:18-20.) For almost a half century, evolutionists pushed Piltdown Man in the faces of Bible believers as scientific proof we evolved from apes! Some proof!

In spite of over 100 years of intensive searching, the only place you will find a missing link today is in the colourful imagination of an evolutionist. Museums certainly don't have any! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?

Although the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it does contain numerous scientific facts. We laugh at the scientific knowledge of just a hundred years ago. If man alone were the author of the Bible, we would expect to find many such humorous errors contained in it. However, if we examine the scientific data of the Bible and find it to be accurate to present-day knowledge, then we have powerful evidence for divine authorship.

The scientific facts we are about to examine are not only accurate, but were revealed thousands of years before man discovered them for himself. The Bible does not contain any errors typical of the time in which it was written. Would we expect anything less from a book written by God?

The Bible is a reliable book of genuine divine prophecy. You can trust it! The evidence presented here is just a tiny portion of the proofs available to establish the divine origin of the Bible. Yet, they are more than sufficient to prove the inspiration of the Bible. There will always be men who scoff at the Bible. You, however, can be confident when you read your Bible that God is the author, for it is written:

"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The Bible is the world's all-time best selling book. About 2.5 billion copies have been printed which are available in over 700 languages. Although the Bible has enjoyed such vast distribution and attention, it is read relatively little. Perhaps part of the reason the Bible is so neglected is the many doubts people have about this unique book. If the Bible came from the mouth of God, then the scriptures are believable when they speak of Jesus Christ and accurate when they touch the realm of science.

All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired, we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-breathed, inspired.

But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men! The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the "author." In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I write to you are the Lord's commandment."

Paul knew the source of his writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,

Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.

The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,

Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible, let us look at some evidence of inspiration.

"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Freedman,

The problem with your real estate argument is that the real estate license is not granted by the state. Marriage certificates are. The Full Faith and Credit section of the U.S. Constitution essentially states that any legal document granted by one state must be recognized by another. That would include marriage certificates GRANTED BY THE STATE. That would not include real estate licensing, as that is not granted by the state.

So, even if we give states the right to decide on marriage, in keeping with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, they would have to recognize legal marriages of other states. Them's the breaks. This is one of the many reasons why DoMA is unconstitutional.

Sarah-3043284

Freedman,

You forgot one very big point... It IS the job of the federal government to ensure equal protection under the law. That's why the 14th Amendment is in the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that civil rights AREN'T left for the states to decide.

The government, both states and federal, are contradicting themselves left and right, because everyone knows DOMA is Unconstitutional, but no one wants to deal with it.

But its not the Judicial Branch that has the power to change laws by themself. They can deem what ever they want unconstitutional, but thats all they can do nothing more. States can still choose to not accept gay marriage. Its pretty simple, if your gay and want to marry, move to a state that allows it and live there.

States cannot violate the US Constitution, Freedman. When the Supreme Court rules laws like DOMA unconstitutional (and they will), if states continue to deny gays the right to marry, they risk -- at the very least -- losing federal funding, among other things.

allswell

Wrong, kraussk. Marriage has not always been between one man and one woman, even in the bible you so strongly believe in.

Try getting that through your bigotted head first.

What are you referring to ? A man having more than one wife in the Old testament ? I think I would say that in Old Testament times having more than one wife was not ideal, but neither was it clearly defined or prohibited as sin. WHat types of marriage were you referring to ?

Crossfit,

Assuming that a state law against gay marriage doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution. Which is up for debate.

But, as I pointed out immediately above your post, even if a state says that the gay couples can't marry within that state, the Full Faith and Credit clause will still force that state to recognize legal same-sex marriages of another state. That is why DoMA was created in the first place -- to try to stop that from happening. Only DoMA is unconstitutional -- for that and many other reasons. So, that's fine by me -- let the states say they won't marry same-sex couples. But, if they're going to follow the U.S. Constitution, they will still have to recognize gay couples who were married in another state.

Also, Crossfit, while we're at it..

I read some of your post about the Bible. Particularly the bit about evolution. All evidence points to evolution by natural selection. The theory of evolution is the most parsimonious explanation of evidence from biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc, etc., etc. To deny the overwhelming evidence out there that supports it, suggests that you are someone more interested in searching out only what fits your beliefs, not facts.

It's one thing to put your faith in your religion. And more power to you. But it's another thing to ignore scientific evidence merely because you find it inconsistent with your beliefs. Anyone who thinks like that is not interested in having a debate or learning anything. You're only interested in confirming what you already believe. Given that, I recommend that you go find a forum of people who will nod their head and agree with you, since you make it clear that is all you're searching for.

Siobhan27 - Yes - real estate licenses are issued by the individual states. Who do you think issues them? The Federal government? A real estate license issued in California is not recognized in Tennessee. Some states have reciprocity agreements, some don't. But if you are a Tennessee broker, and move to California - it is as if you had no license at all - and you don't. It doesn't matter to California what you did or didn't do in Tennessee.

ErinNJ - You're correct. States are subject to the constitution. So is the Fed. The court ruled the provision unconstitutional not because of any civil rights violation. They ruled it unconstitutional because the Fed has no power to dictate to the States the definition of marriage. Each state has that right by virtue of the 10th Amendment.

Freedman,

Fair enough. I was under the impression that the state had rules as to what one had to do to receive real estate licensing, but did not itself grant the licenses. However, real estate licensing has nothing to do with rights of the state or rights granted by the state. It merely is a certificate that allows one to perform a job. On that basis, I would assume that real estate licenses do not fall under the Full Faith and Credit clause, where a marriage contract -- which includes a variety of rights granted by the states -- would. However, admittedly, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But my reading of legal publications on the manner seem to suggest that DoMA was created specifically to try to get around the Full Faith and Credit clause, by essentially saying that "gay marriage is an exception to the clause." Thus, implying that marriage certificates would be covered by the clause, EXCEPT for the fact that they made this law. However, if DoMA is ruled unconstitutional, then I would assume the Full Faith and Credit Clause would still be in effect for covering marriage certificates.

Every legal marriage is first granted a license by some state. Without a marriage license, you're not married. Without a law license, you cannot practice law. Each state determines the qualifications they deem necessary to grant any given license.

The problem with DoMA is attempted to take the definition of marriage away from the state. So if Vermont says two adult men are married, and issue them a marriage license, the Federal government has no right to overrule that. That is Vermont's business. At the same time, if Tennessee refuses to grant a marriage license because state requirements are not met, the Federal government has no right to overrule that. Each state is in control of their own licensing requirements.

Just because one obtains a law license in Texas does not mean that person can practice law in Kansas. Kansas does not recognize a Texas law license. You'd have to go to Kansas and meet their requirements in order to get a Kansas law license, then you could practice law in Kansas as well.

HUD requires a real estate agent to be involved in any transaction dealing with the sale of HUD properties. They have properties in every state. It is up to the state to determine who has and who has not met the qualifications to become a licensed real estate agent - not the Fed. If Montana says this woman is a qualified real estate agent, the HUD cannot refuse to let her be involved in the sale of Montana HUD property.

It's simple. Each state determines for themselves who gets any type of license. In Tennessee, only one man and one woman can be granted a marriage license. This is by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and the Fed has to accept Tennessee's licensing requirements, just as they do the licensing requirements for real estate agents and for attorneys.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made a good call. The federal government has no right to abridge the rights of the various states regarding licensing as it is protected by the 10th amendment.

Freedman,

I don't know how to make this point any clearer. If the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to marriage licenses, which, since DoMA was created to purposely prevent the Full Faith and Credit clause from being applied to marriage licenses (implying that it would otherwise be applied to marriage licenses), than a state failing to recognize the marriage from another state would violate the U.S. Constitution.

I admit, that I don't know what would be the legal difference between a marriage certificate and a real estate license insofar as this clause. It may be how or who issues it (does a court issue real estate license?), but the implication is that the if it weren't for DoMA (which is unconstitional anyway) then marriage certificates would be protected under that clause.

In this case, then states could make their own laws as to whether or not they will grant the marriage license itself, however, they could not deny the marriage of a couple who moved there from another state -- because to do so would violate the U.S. Constitution. The end.

Siobhan27

Also, Crossfit, while we're at it..

I read some of your post about the Bible. Particularly the bit about evolution. All evidence points to evolution by natural selection. The theory of evolution is the most parsimonious explanation of evidence from biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc, etc., etc. To deny the overwhelming evidence out there that supports it, suggests that you are someone more interested in searching out only what fits your beliefs, not facts.

It's one thing to put your faith in your religion. And more power to you. But it's another thing to ignore scientific evidence merely because you find it inconsistent with your beliefs. Anyone who thinks like that is not interested in having a debate or learning anything. You're only interested in confirming what you already believe. Given that, I recommend that you go find a forum of people who will nod their head and agree with you, since you make it clear that is all you're searching for.

Natural Selection is something we see and observe, I dont know any scientist who believe in God that would deny that. We see animals evolving to adapt to their environment all the time, but they are still the same animal. They have not changed into another type of species. That is where world view naturalistic science that is biased , assumptions, presumptions come into play. I have spent years reading the ongoing debate between both sides. Yet to this day have I seen evidence for molecules to man of evolution. You want to impress me, then give me a study that shows the exact steps of , first how anything came to be, as in how life started, ( please dont give me experiments done with chemicals and zapping them to make aminos or some type of life, because this is taking something that already exists, and using intelligence , scientists , to create something now ) how we evolved and gained ALL the information from simple to complex beings we are now. When you can do that, then you will have my attention.

Siobhan27 - I respect your opinion, but you certainly don't have the authority to say 'The End.' The best you can do is say 'I hope this is how The End will be.'

In the meantime, whether it is a license to practice medicine, a license to practice law, a barber's license, or a marriage license - each is regulated and controlled however any individual state sees fit. To attempt to circumvent that would be a violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

I think the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made the right call. They didn't call it on any type of civil rights - they didn't say it was unfair - they called it specifically on States Rights. Vermont has the right to allow homosexual marriage, and the fed has no authority to override that. Tennessee has the right to require marriage to be between one man and one woman - 30 states have already done just that - and the fed has no authority to override that.

"the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States." - U.S. Supreme Court 1979

'Congress did emphasize a related concern, based on the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Baehr, that state judges would impose same-sex marriage on unwilling states. H.R. Rep. No.104-664, at 5-6, 12, 16-17. But almost all states have readily amended constitutions, as well as elected judges, and can protect themselves against what their citizens may regard as overreaching.' ~ 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

and the fed has no authority to override that.

The 14th Amendment would disagree with that sentiment.

Basically, by the writings of the Constitution, at some point in the (hopefully, very near) future, marriage equality will be the law of these United States. States had their anti-miscegenation laws, and they were voided - by the Feds (be it Congress or the Supremes).

However, in your example regarding Vermont, you are correct. The fed has no authority to override their allowance of marriage equality. Why? Because of the 14th Amendment - "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It's going to happen. The problem, is that we are supposedly "the Greatest Country on Earth", and yet we are so behind the eight-ball when it comes to freedom and equality for all of our citizenry.

'In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization. Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for the statute.' ~ 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Freedman,

"The end" was in reference to me no longer debating this with you because you keep talking past me, not with me.

But I will try one last time to spell it out.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is a part of the U.S. Constitution and says that acts, records and rulings of one state must be upheld by another.

If a marriage license is considered part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, then any state failing to recognize the marriage of another state would be violating the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution overrules state laws and constitutions.

Therefore, states would have to recognize same-sex marriage of other states even if that state does not issue marriage licenses for same sex couples.

This entire argument I am making hinges on whether or not marriage licenses fall under the Full Faith and Credit clause. The implication is that DoMA was spefically created to prevent gay marriage from being considered part of that clause. Thus, the implication is that without DoMA (an unconstitutional law in the first place), the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution would overrule state laws and force states to recognize same-sex marriage license of other states.

Thus, your claim that states can make their own laws as to whether or not they will issue marriage licenses is true (insofar as the debate we are currently having). But, they would still have to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by another state.

Crossfit,

I have no desire to get in an evolution debate on a thread that is about something else entirely.. however, I will bite, but only for this one comment...

We have observed speciation (insofar as a species taking part in assortive mating and no longer being capable of mating with the original species). Thus, that would be considered a new species. So, you're already just wrong.

More importantly, all the evidence collected points to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (including micro and macroevolution -- even if we pretended those terms weren't a false dichotomy anyway). Thus, the theory of evolution by natural selection is the most parsimonious theory which accounts for all the evidence. There is no evidence to disconfirm the theory of evolution and there is no more parsiminious theory. Given the wealth of evidence that supports this theory, the theory of evolution is broadly accepted in science as essentially fact.

If you can provide a scientific theory that more parsimoniously explains the evidence, feel free to tell us all. And when you're done with that, I recommend going and trying to get that published. Because if such a theory existed, whoever came up with it who be celebrated as the next Darwin. So, let's hear it.

Siobhan27 - Apparently the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals needs to become aware of that. You might take a peek at post #2.180 above, which is a quote from their ruling.

Federal judges should be required to read newsvine before they hand down judicial opinions.

Sio , no you give me your evidence, your the one making the claim.. As for micro and macro, it does need to be defined , evolution by itself is too broad. So im asking you what species are your referring to when you said , "we have seen it "

The evidence you talk about is a lot of presumptions , assumptions, and bias, true this is off topic, but I need to know what species your talking about. Also I still stand by saying, where is the hard evidence for goo to you now evolution.

What are you referring to ? A man having more than one wife in the Old testament ? I think I would say that in Old Testament times having more than one wife was not ideal, but neither was it clearly defined or prohibited as sin. WHat types of marriage were you referring to ?

Marriage between a man and his slaves/concubines/brother's wives...

What's more, the word homosexual did not exist in the time of the bible's crafting. Only the interpretation of flawed men reading flawed men claims it is.

Finally, if you wish to claim any part of the Old Testament in your condemnation of homosexuality, you must also condemn every other sin in the Old Testament.

Freedman,

I don't know whether your intention was to mispresent that quote or not, but you are right the quote is from the Appeals Court ruling but once placed in context, you would see that those are not the rulings or positions of the Appeals Court. In fact, that quote is from a section in which the Appeals court is referring to other rulings in an effort to point out how those rulings are not relevant to their current ruling because the Court of Appeals is not addressing section 2 of DoMA (i.e. the section that deals with states not having to recognize other states' marriages). So, I'm not sure how your quote is relevant to my point.. which again, is that if all of DoMA gets ruled unconstitutional (which it should be), then there is nothing to stop the Full Faith and Credit clause from applying to all marriage licenses, thus meaning that states would have to recognize gay marriages granted in other states.

Crossfit,

In science, the way it works is that a well supported theory stands unless there is a sizable amount of evidence to disconfirm the theory (which, thus far, there is none to disconfirm the theory of evolution) or a more parsimonious theory arises. So, unless you have some evidence you're hiding away that disconfirms the theory of evolution or a more parsimonious theory, the theory of evolution will continue to be treated essentially as fact in the scientific community. So, in this instance, the proof is on you.

As for speciation, it would literally take you seconds to google speciation and see the many instances already observed. I'm not going to sit here and start citing things for you only because, again, this is not a thread about evolution. You want to argue about it, start an argument with me elsewhere. But if you want a place to start, go look up Diane Dodd and fruit flies.

Everything. One of evolutions favorite sites: has as its best examples of "speciation" fruit flies, spotted owls, and bacteria in a petri dish in a laboratory.

After "10,000 generations" of fruit flies eating malt, they may "prefer" to mate with other fruit flies who eat malt, but the RESULTS found by Diane Dodd are INCONCLUSIVE:

The strongest statement she has is: "ALTHOUGH WE CAN'T BE SURE, these preference differences PROBABLY existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the SORT of result we'd expect, IF allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation" (Statement entirely verbatim, editing in all caps mine).

This is BY NO MEANS CONCLUSIVE. I still see fruit flies, spotted owls, spotted owls, and bacteria in a petri dish. NONE of these has "speciated" into something capable of walking out of the laboratory.

Where Christians have failed so miserably in the last couple of generations is allowing evolutionists to define the terms of the debate in the public square.

What we now have is tenured "professors" in Colleges who are not only deluded into accepting evolution, but determined not to even offer any information in the classroom which might cast doubt upon THEIR religion. (Evolution).

For example, polonium haloes, which are scientific evidence of a YOUNG earth:

The truth is that all of the body of knowledge which YOU consider "evidence" for evolution, may be examined by OTHER scientists who might interpret it in a different light and consider the SAME evidence as evidence for Biblical Creation.

“Dodd found that some reproductive isolation had occurred as a result of the geographic isolation and selection in the different environments: "maltose flies" preferred other "maltose flies," and "starch flies" preferred other "starch flies." Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation."

They simply preferred to mate with other flies. This is no way relates to evolution or separating into a different species. Statements like “although we can’t be sure”, “probably” do help. They obviously have no proof that the genes were effected at all. If we are going to speculate, just like they did, could it not be that the chemical result in their bodies due to their diet altering the reference frame of their receptors causing them to prefer like flies. Lets also consider the word prefer. I could easily toss a coin 10 times and repeat the tossing it 10 times 3 time for 3 separate tests. Mathematically, I have a 50% chance of landing on either side however we all know that I will very rarely end up with 5 out of 10 times it landing on the heads side. So lets say I do this experiment 3 times and end up with it landing on the head side more often. Can I then say the coin prefers the heads side up and speculate aimlessly, with no evidence, as to why? Obviously no.

Lets look at another example which evolutionists clamed evolution was happening in the natural world before our eyes.
The peppered moth:
“The "peppered moth" example is probably the best known, or most often cited proof of "evolution is action". As explained by Menton: "The Peppered moth (Biston betularia) is typically a whitish moth covered with black spots. This coloration provides an effective camouflage for the moths as they rest on certain Birch trees. Like humans, however, these moths can be found in a range of pigmentation from very black to very white and all shades in between. In a much touted study in England it was found that when the white trees, on which the moths rested, became dark from industrial pollution, birds ate more of the lighter moths (missing the darker ones). It came as no surprise that the population of darker moths increased while the lighter ones decreased. It was further observed (but rarely mentioned) that when cities cleaned up their air, the trees got lighter and the lighter moths again predominated." This is NATURAL SELECTION in action.
The problem is that there is NO EVOLUTION occurring (no increase in complexity)! At the start of the story there are both light and dark colored moths present. At the end of the story there are both light and dark colored moths present. No new trait has been acquired. The only difference is a shift in the color distribution in the population.”
With the introduction of genetics it was also found that the color of the moth was effected by the color of the surrounding environment during a certain stage of growth. The point also being that genetics more complicated that shuffling a deck of cards.

Would you like an example of increased complexity? Here ya go...

I commend your skepticism about certain studies and evidence -- as that is integral to science. However, I note that you are skeptical about that which you don't believe in (speciation), but not quite so skeptical about things you DO believe in (young earth theories). Young earth theories have little to no evidence to support them and what evidence is out there has been disconfirmed. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6,000 years old. So tell me, why are you so much more skeptical of one thing (which, while my example of fruit flies was admittedly a poor one given that it is somewhat controversial, there are plenty of other examples), but not skeptical or so quick to provide the mounds of evidence against what you believe in (young earth)? Could it be the confirmation bias?

And, I'm sure you'll be wild to point out that I am not skeptical of theories I believe in, however I actually do work in evolutionary psychology. And I go out of my way to be skeptical of my own work (so that it will published), as well other work in my field. It's actually a part of my job.

The truth is this: Evolution by natural selection is well supported by converging evidence from many areas within science, has not been disconfirmed, and is the most parsimonious theory out there. I even asked you to provide disconfirming evidence or a more parsimonious explanation, but so far, you have failed to do so. Again, I greatly encourage people to be skeptical of individual studies. And even be skeptical of the details of the theory of evolution. But, again, until someone can actually overturn the mounds of evidence supporting evolution, can provide disconfirming evidence or can provide a better explanation of all the evidence we have seen, anyone denying evolution by natural selection is likely more concerned about supporting their personal bias, and not so concerned about science or discovery.

Sorry, my link didn't show up.. here is again an example of increasing complexity due to natural selection:

Clearly, posting links eludes me on this site..

So, just google "Nature yeast multicellular" to read about a study that showed evidence of yeast evolving quickly from a single cell organism to a multicellular organism.

You cant link perhaps due to being newer to posting im not sure. As for labeling young earth belief or theories is irrelevant in this point of evolution. As i stated above, there are no scientists whe are christians that can deny the mutation of a species to adapt to environment. We all see that, and to deny that would be a futile argument. What were talking about now, is non life , turning into simple life, and then it gaining so much complexity that those simple first life cells slowly evolved into what we are today as human beings.

I will go as far as agreeing that the theory of evolution of Goo to what you are now is what naturalistic main stream scientists have for their belief system to make every thing fit together, but I dont agree to them knowing 100 % for sure, and a step by step process of the beginning to now. Its something that they change every month it seems, as to how everything came to be in the beginning until now, but there just isnt anything there . When any scientist can show the entire process from simple cell to complex human beings, then we can end all of this debate.

as for your yeast

Scientific American: “Test Tube Yeast Evolve Multicellularity”

“Evolution in progress” said to show how easily multicellularity evolved

“Despite their modesty,” William Ratcliff and Michael Travisano’s “achievement has earned praise and admiration from evolutionary biologists around the world,” according to ScienceDaily.¹² What have they done? According to Ratcliff, they don’t just answer questions about evolution in their lab: they “recreate it.”¹² According to their work published January 16 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they have elucidated a way multicellular organisms could easily evolve from unicellular ones by evolving multicellular yeast in their lab. (We discussed Ratcliff’s announcement about their results last summer in News to Note, July 2, 2011.)

Evolutionists are convinced that multicellular life forms evolved from single-celled ones but cannot explain how single cells could unlearn the selfishness required for survival and learn to cooperate. “Traditional theories make this out to be a difficult transition because you have to somehow turn off selection on the individual cells and turn it on for the collective,” according to a German evolutionary biologist, but Travisano’s team, he said, demonstrated “these transitions can be super easy.”

Travisano and Ratcliff chose a variety of brewer’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) that characteristically forms a snowflake-cluster of adherent cells when it reproduces. They demonstrated the yeast had this characteristic behavior before beginning the experiment. Some yeast and other microorganisms aggregate into biofilms, but with this particular variety “each cell was seen to give rise to a new snowflake-type cluster.”¹³

By then centrifuging the yeast each day and only keeping the large clusters that sank to the bottom, they artificially selected the best snowflake-formers to survive and reproduce. In two months, all the yeast “had evolved into snowflakes.”¹⁴

Travisano’s team said their newly evolved multicellular yeast then developed the capacity to behave like conventional multicellular organisms by developing “division of labor.” The required labor was apoptosis—cellular suicide of rows of cells. This coordinated cell death enabled the huge clusters to break into smaller clusters that reproduce more efficiently. Since single cells were sacrificing themselves for the good of the whole—analogous to “the split seen in more complex multicellular organisms, with body cells that die off every generation and germline cells (sperm and eggs) that carry over into the next one”¹⁴—the researchers believed their snowflakes had transitioned to genuine multicellularity.

Despite Ratcliff’s assertion that he has recreated evolution and demonstrated how easily multicellularity got off the evolutionary ground long ago, the fact is these yeast characteristically formed snowflake clusters before any selection pressure was applied to them. How could Ratcliff evolve something that already existed?

When driven to form a population of large snowflakes by selection pressure, these yeast were still the same snowflake-forming yeast they’d always been. And when those large snowflakes of yeast showed how they were able to cooperate and detach manageable-sized reproducing clusters, they were still just doing what other microorganisms do under similar circumstances. Coordinated cellular death—apoptosis—is not unique to multicellular organisms. Apoptosis is common in biofilms-cooperative communities of microorganisms like dental plaque and slime mold. Furthermore, apoptosis is already known to occur in brewer’s yeast.¹⁵

The “divide-and-stick”¹⁴ mechanism of multicellular evolution may have been instrumental for other organisms too, the researchers suggest. For instance, they write, “Choanoflagellates, the closest unicellular ancestor to animals, can form multicellular colonies through postdivision adhesion, raising the possibility that a similar step was instrumental in the evolution of animal multicellularity.” However, what they are really pointing out is that some other microorganisms also already have the capacity to form clusters of cells adherent to each other after division. That characteristic has not been demonstrated to lead to multicellular organisms of any new type but only reveals a characteristic of some microorganisms. No new ability is acquired and no new kind of organism is formed. Furthermore, the ancestral relationship to which the team refers is pure speculation and also violates the biblical principle that God created all kinds of organisms to reproduce within their created kinds.

No new kind of organism has evolved in Travisano’s lab. His team is merely reporting the results of two months of standard agricultural husbandry principles applied to yeast. Some evolutionary biologists have posed questions about the genetics underlying the results. Massachusetts evolutionary biologist Mansi Srivastava, for instance, commented, “What remains to be seen for me is how relevant is it to actual transitions to multicellularity” and “what the underlying genetic changes were.”¹⁶ Stony Brook biochemist Todd Miller likewise wonders if there were “any changes in expression of signaling genes after they selected the snowflakes.”¹⁶ That work may yet be forthcoming and might reveal a mechanism for variation within the created kind. But since the yeast were already proven to have the ability to do what they later did, they did not evolve into anything new, just fluffier yeast.

In the end your yeast is still just yeast, it didnt grow legs and become a dog or even gain the information to show such thing would or could happen.

You said there is no evidence of increased complexity. I gave you an example of a single celled organism -- yeast -- that evolved to act like a multicellular organism. They go on to explain that this is not just single celled organisms that happened to be working together, but that the work shows evidence that the snowflakes are multicellular organisms:

Here is an excerpt about specifically that from the Scientific American article:"

So the researchers set out to determine whether artificial selection would act on the snowflake yeast as if they also were multicellular organisms. To test it, one batch of the multicellular yeast was allowed only five minutes to settle in a tube (representing a strong selection pressure), whereas another batch was given 25 minutes (a weaker selection pressure). After 35 generations, the yeast that were exposed to stronger selection evolved to have larger cluster sizes, whereas those in the weak selection group actually shrank in size. This indicated that each cluster of cells was evolving as one organism.

In addition, time-lapse photography (video below) revealed that, in order to reproduce, the multicellular yeast divides itself into branches that develop into the multicellular form as well. The daughter clusters did not create their own offspring until they had reached a similar size as their parents. The presence of this juvenile stage shows that the snowflake yeast had adopted a multicellular way of life, says William Ratcliff, a postdoctoral student in Travisano’s lab.

So the researchers set out to determine whether artificial selection would act on the snowflake yeast as if they also were multicellular organisms. To test it, one batch of the multicellular yeast was allowed only five minutes to settle in a tube (representing a strong selection pressure), whereas another batch was given 25 minutes (a weaker selection pressure). After 35 generations, the yeast that were exposed to stronger selection evolved to have larger cluster sizes, whereas those in the weak selection group actually shrank in size. This indicated that each cluster of cells was evolving as one organism.

In addition, time-lapse photography (video below) revealed that, in order to reproduce, the multicellular yeast divides itself into branches that develop into the multicellular form as well. The daughter clusters did not create their own offspring until they had reached a similar size as their parents. The presence of this juvenile stage shows that the snowflake yeast had adopted a multicellular way of life, says William Ratcliff, a postdoctoral student in Travisano’s lab."

New or not, isn't the point. The point is that a single celled organism, under selection pressure, will at least act as a multicellular organism. Thus, increasing in complexity. And I agree that the underlying genetic changes would need to be studied to confirm whether or not these things are truly becoming multi-cellular organism and not just single-celled organisms working together. However, this is evidence that an organism can evolve to become increasingly complex.

Also, I don't know if people who make comments like "a fish is not going to become a dog" or the like are being facetious, or just fundamentally don't understand the theory of evolution. Under no circumstances would the theory of evolution predict that a fish would suddenly grow legs and bark like a dog.

sorry i wasnt more clear SIo on what I meant by gaining info. Im talking about information gaining as simple cells into human beings. yeast is still yeast, owls are still owls, fruit flies are still fruit flies

One of the few times I 'd say courts got it right!

This is just the beginning. There are already several such rulings waiting for the Supreme Court to get off their asses and take a stand on.

Does not the freedom of religion, spelled out in the constitution, imply freedom from religion?

I, also, believe that gay couples should have the opportunity to be just as miserable in marriage as are straight couples.

P.S. Who is the a'hole at msnbc that came up the the pain in the butt "older" and "newer" crap?

Let the silly homosexuals have their unions, play as if they are a normal male-female couple, but IT IS NOT MARRIAGE, as that is reserved for a union between one man and one woman only. They need to get this through their sodomizing heads. Let them call it homosexual union or whatever.

You don't own the word "marriage".

In addition, heterosexuals engage in sodomy more than homosexuals do.

Wrong, kraussk. Marriage has not always been between one man and one woman, even in the bible you so strongly believe in.

Try getting that through your bigotted head first.

The gays should be careful what they wish for, they just might get it, along with other consequences that no-one likes, including the gays.

The gays should be careful what they wish for, they just might get it, along with other consequences that no-one likes, including the gays

What, like being married to someone?

Like ugly divorces. At least there will be fewer children affected by homosexual divorces than heterosexual divorces.

By your logic then we would still have slavery.

TOD-you said it!! Everyday, something with same sex marriage is in the headline. I am pretty sure we have a lot more to worry about right now. GET OVER IT!!

I suppose when you are not the one who is cheated out of your fair share then you feel this is not an issue. How would you feel if it were YOU and those you love who were denied benefits all your life? This is an issue for some people. It can't be all about you all the time.

It's the judges job to decide upon the Constitutionality of legislation. If that legislation violates the Constitution, then it must be struck down (either through repeal or the courts).

While we have a lot of serious issues facing our country - upholding the Constitution is always a pressing issue.

you know what I am denied benefits right now, I am not pissing and moaning about it.

Oh,

Please describe the benefits that people are being deprived of.

Summer,

Unless there is definitive scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait (not a choice) there is no legal ground to claim that your rights are being violated (please don't blather on about your personal stories or emotional reasoning). Why do you think African Americans are not in favor of same sex marriage, or the goofy comparison's being made to their fight for rights. Its not the same!!

All of human history has recognised marriage as between 1 man and a woman, even societies with large homosexual activity would never have considered same-sex marriage as an option for the family unit

This is a very important issue.

Hey Tod, don't your knuckles hurt from dragging on the ground? Just asking. LMFAO at you!

If I was being denied the right to get married, this would sure as hell be important to me! Hell, it's important even though I'm straight and married already!

Funny how it's only an Activist court when a piece of legislation the Right adores is what is found unconstitutional..

According to 14 Supreme Court rulings, Marriage is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Yes, Blacks can get married, interracial couples can get married, and gays can marry.

Subsequent federal benefits MUST be conferred AUTOMATICALLY. The federal government can't decide which married couples it wants to give rights to and which ones it doesn't.

The court is CORRECT.

It apparently IS the most pressing issue facing the right wing, because they've been hellbent on supporting DOMA at the federal level for some time now.

P.S.

When I was single I did not have the same benefits that I have now that I am married. More and more people are chosing not to marry (not saying that is a good thing), why are you not fighting for "the same rights" for single people?

Marriage between a man and a woman is something that governments have always known to be a stabilizing factor for society (can you not see that it has been the breakdown of that norm that has added to many of society's ill's?). Government should put its stamp of approval on traditional marriage and be silent concerning non-traditional forms.

The same has been said recently about the SCOTUS by the left....remember?

Please describe the benefits that people are being deprived of.

There are over 1138 federal rights and benefits associated with marriage according to the GAO.

Unless there is definitive scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait (not a choice) there is no legal ground to claim that your rights are being violated (please don't blather on about your personal stories or emotional reasoning). Why do you think African Americans are not in favor of same sex marriage, or the goofy comparison's being made to their fight for rights. Its not the same!!

It's funny that you assume I would talk about personal stories or emotional reasoning. Why would you assume that?

Also, there are gene sequences found on chromosomes 7, 8, 10 and X that appear to play a role in sexuality. These genes are found at a higher than chance rate in gay men. Those on chromosomes 10 & X only play a role in sexuality when inherited from the mother, while those on 7 & 8 play a role regardless of which parent the genes are inherited from. What is not clear is how these genes work together (or may be even with other genes, hormones, other environmental factors) to influence sexuality. Essentially, it is most likely that sexuality - whether homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or asexual - has a genetic and non-genetic component.

Furthermore, whether homosexuality is genetic or not (though I think it is not a choice), is irrelevant to the issue of Constitutionality of laws banning gay marriage. The fact remains, homosexuals that are citizens of this country are citizens of this country; as such, they deserve equal access (and equal protection) under the law as we heterosexuals. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a legal contract between consenting adults - as such, homosexuals should have access to this contract and all the rights/benefits/responsibilities associated with the contract.

"Unless there is definitive scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait (not a choice) there is no legal ground to claim that your rights are being violated"

Total B.S.

The idea that homosexuality is "morally wrong" is religious. The state cannot force your religion on me or anyone else.

It doesn't matter if gays choose or not. It's none of your business. It's none of your preacher's business, and it's none of your church's business.

Either we have religious freedom, or we don't. Make up your mind.

Tod-2791955

If homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is a choice, tell me about the time you considered whether or not to be gay.

"Unless there is definitive scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait (not a choice) there is no legal ground to claim that your rights are being violated"

There is.... peer reviewed scientific evidence in fact. Hundreds of studies about this have been done in the last hundred years or so, more recently genetic evidence has surfaced in support of homosexuality being natural.

"Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity." ()

Tod-2791955 - Unless there is definitive scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait (not a choice) there is no legal ground to claim that your rights are being violated

Looks like the court disagreed with you.

In fact, it's the hatred against gays expressed by bigots like you which caused the court to rule as it did. Hating gays and trying to disadvantage them isn't a legitimate government purpose.

Yep, "hating bigots like"

Me, (the democrats/republicans who supported DOMA) 1/2 the country, 1/2 of Europe, 95% of the rest of the world, and all of human history up til now are bigots, because we dare to state the obvious; marriage and family are defined as man, woman, children.

I am constantly amazed at those who think their miniscule, snapshot in time, enlightened, ideologies are far superior to the timeless truths that got us here.

That this: "all of human history up til now" and this "I am constantly amazed at those who think their miniscule, snapshot in time, enlightened, ideologies are far superior to the timeless truths that got us here" are in the same post cracks me up.

Umm, sorry, but sexual minorities have existed throughout history and in every culture, and historically, a number of cultures have been accepting of them. It's interesting that you believe that the conservative perspective originating somewhere around the early Victorian age have become "timeless truths" in your mind.

What's the point of voting in, or passing legislation, if some activist court is just gonna overturn it?

Your question should be, what's the point in legislatures continuing to pass unconstitutional laws?

Marriage between a man and a woman is something that governments have always known to be a stabilizing factor for society (can you not see that it has been the breakdown of that norm that has added to many of society's ill's?). Government should put its stamp of approval on traditional marriage and be silent concerning non-traditional forms.

Why is marriage marriage between a man and a woman a stabilizing factor, and not marriage between two people of the same sex. Are you saying that gays are already stable, and it is the poor heterosexuals who need help settling down? Please don't bring up children. Many same-sex couples (around 20-25% at the last census) are raising children, while many heterosexual couples are not raising children. We also allow elderly people and sterile individuals to marry, as well.

This "marriage is procreation" argument is so easily debunked that I'm amazed that anyone bothers to bring it up anymore. But, when that's the only ammunition in your arsenal, I guess you have to continue to use it.