Took the words out of my mouth, Ron.

Well put, Ron

Pretty much my take.

No matter which way it goes, the issue needs to be settled by the Supreme Court once and for all.

I agree

The feds need to at least recognize gay marriages, so that people that get married in states that have it can at least file their federal taxes properly.

Why do you need the government's approval to be married anyway? Why doesn't the government make rules defining a civil union and leave the whole marriage issue to churches. The civil union could give a couple the same contractual rights that a married couple has without having to worry about religious beliefs.

I still don't think it's going to change the right of a church to preform the ceremony! They don't want to, they won't have to! Watch the fight change!

The objection to gay marriages is based solely on religious views. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Plus, there's that line about 'all men are created equal' to consider. There is no non-religious argument that can be made to support making gay marriages illegal

This will eventually be heard and gay marriage will be legalized. It's only a matter of time

Making it illegal doesn't make it wrong.

Why do you need the government's approval to be married anyway? Why doesn't the government make rules defining a civil union and leave the whole marriage issue to churches. The civil union could give a couple the same contractual rights that a married couple has without having to worry about religious beliefs.

Then you must change the 1000+ laws that mention the word "marriage" to use the term "civil union", and you must do so immediately. Otherwise you are creating a "separate but equal" situation, which have already been ruled to not be constitutional.

Making it legal doesn't make it right.

Nobody cares what your personal definition of right and wrong is. It doesn't apply to anyone else.

I strongly feel that when gay marriage becomes law that we have to take back all the laws that have been written to grant same sex couples the right to health care and pensions and everything else that was granted to married couples. If you want all those perks you must get married. No more living together and insisting on rights that were allowed for married couples unless you get married.

I totally agree with most of the comments above. You know gay marriage will be legal soon so why drag it out and make it a divisive social issue in the mean time? Legalize it and get past it... religious bigots can choose not to marry gays in their church and gay people can then have civil marriages or marry in churches that are more accepting of gay people.

As an atheist I don't personally care what churches do but there is no justification for banning gays from enjoying civil marriages. I'm married, I don't believe in god and I didn't marry in a church. I'm tired of organized religion and religious people claiming marriage for themselves. Marriage is a legal contract entered into for many reasons independent of supernatural beliefs. Since marriage grants legal and economic rights it is unconstitutional to ban gay people from benefiting from those rights.

I still don't think it's going to change the right of a church to preform the ceremony!

@ Bubba

Of course it wouldn't. All of the CURRENT state laws legalizing same sex marriage explicitly allow for religious organizations to opt out of performing a ceremony if it goes against their tenets. I wouldn't expect a SCOTUS ruling to be any different.

BTW: While I support same sex marriage (because, for the life of me, I've never seen a good reason why we should NOT allow it), I do support the provisions that allow religious organizations to opt out on grounds of religious freedom.

I have a right to be married (yes)! I have a right to be married in a church (????). How many gay people want that right, how many gay people think the church is wrong, how many gay people want the Government to change the churches way of thinking! If your gay you have a right to live (???). I am not gay, but you answer the question! Do gay people have a right to live, if yes they have all other rights, if no they have no rights, simple answer to a simple question!

Gay marriage is no way any threat to anyone religious beliefs. Marriage is kind of like the NFL. There is the institution of marriage (the NFL) but there is two kinds of marriage. The religious ceremony marriage (the NFC) and the civil ceremony marriage (the AFC). Both the Religious (NFC) and Civil (AFC) are marriage. They operate under the exact same rules and have the same Commissioner (the Government). Allowing gay marriage does not automatically mean that any religion will be forced to perform the marriage ceremony for a same sex couple. It only means they CAN if they chose too. They currently and always have had the right to decide to marry a couple based on their religious beliefs. That will not change. On the civil side all civil servants that officiate over the marriage ceremonies will have to marry any couple that wishes. Just like a police officer they don't get to decide what laws the will enforce base on their beliefs. If they in good conscience can't officiate over a gay marriage due to their religious beliefs then they need to get a new JOB. Just like if your job requires to work Saturday or Sunday and your religious beliefs say you can't. You need to get a new JOB. Either allow gay marriage or disallow all the legal, tax and financial benefits that come along with being married for straight couples.

Beth agree 100%.

Making it legal doesn't make it right.

Your claiming it is wrong doesn't make it so.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are still people out there who believe that their beliefs (religious or other) should outweigh someone's civil rights.

Why do you need the government's approval to be married anyway? (Mike MM)

A number of sticky points, historically, have lead to where we are today. First and foremost, as a society we recognize that inbreeding causes genetic problems. And we also know about complications that come about in pregnancies -- so we have blood tests. And, of course, there's the all-important issue of who receives benefits from a partner's social security trust fund when that partner dies? Currently, heterosexuals enjoy the benefit of the stay-at-home partner being able to claim the wage-earner partner's social security benefits, if that wage-earner dies. Homosexuals enjoy no such similar treatment.

Beth-440386 - BTW: While I support same sex marriage (because, for the life of me, I've never seen a good reason why we should NOT allow it), I do support the provisions that allow religious organizations to opt out on grounds of religious freedom.

Just to be clear, such feel-good provisions are absolutely, 100% unnecessary. They might make it easier to pass marriage equality but they're legally irrelevant given the 1st Amendment.

The government simply cannot and does not force any religion to perform a religious ritual or recognize anyone's lawful marriage......otherwise divorced and remarried Catholics could get their divorces recognized by their church and their second marriages blessed by their church.

Devils son - there is two kinds of marriage. The religious ceremony marriage (the NFC) and the civil ceremony marriage (the AFC). Both the Religious (NFC) and Civil (AFC) are marriage. They operate under the exact same rules and have the same Commissioner (the Government).

Ummmm.......there's actually only one form of marriage. Ask any divorced and remarried Catholic if the rules are the same for marriage as for holy matrimony.

Only the state licenses, regulates and performs marriage, even when it's officiated by a priest acting momentarily as a proxy for the state. The religious rite of holy matrimony (or whatever word your church uses) has absolutely no bearing on your marital status.

Making it legal doesn't make it right.

Right with your imaginary sky daddy who has given absolutely no proof of His existence in how many thousands of years? Or right with you? Is there really a difference when you get right down to it?

Gays should be treated no differently than we as a society treat infertile heterosexual couples. We don't tell a woman who has already dropped that last egg 'you cannot marry anymore', so it's NOT ONLY about Children. And we don't require marriages to occur only through the function of the Church -- indeed, those are technically 'rites of matrimony', where the secular form is a 'marriage'.

Nobody is telling Churches that they must perform a Holy Rite which is against their fundamentals. But if there is a Church/Mosque/Temple that wishes to perform such rites for homosexuals, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to tell them they cannot? That freedom of religion sword cuts BOTH ways. Plus, we don't even NEED religious houses to get 'married'. In most states, Judges, Justices of the Peace, or even Notaries, can perform marriages.

ProBiz: "a morally corrupt and wrong subject matter such as gay marriage"

Who died and made YOU "god"????

You're tipping your hand that you aren't too bright. Much like South Africa was when they signed their constitution, Egypt is in a state of upheaval. You can't just force a square peg into a round hole just because it's the American Constitution. How you make that huge jump in logic that Ginsburg doesn't believe in the Constitution based upon that, I'll never know.

LOL, I would take the opinion of a successful and recognized judge over the moronic ramblings of some insignificant fool on an internet messageboard any day of the week.

ProBiz:" The Supreme Court justice (Ginsburg) that stated in a television interview regarding Egypt that the United States constitution should not be looked at as the model for Egypt and South Africa constitution would be better. So a Supreme Court justice that doesn't agree with the United States Constitution"

Reading comprehension? Ginsberg did NOT say she "doesn't agree with the United States Constitution." She said the "model" for Egypt's new constitution would be "better" if based on the "South African constitution."

That's all. {{{BIG HUG}}} It'll be ok. Glad I could help you "get this straight" (no pun intended). ;^)

The term marriage needs to be removed from the laws, all laws. Marriage is a Christian rite defined as a covenant entered into by one man and one woman with God. Put civil unions in place for your “legal contract.” Then everyone can have a “legal” relationship with whomever you want. Those of us who want to enter into a holy marriage covenant can do so through our churches.

Pro,

now you are twisting words again. She state that our constitution would not make sense for Egypt. This is true because there are certain freedoms that cannot be had in the Middle East until they come to realize that their religion is not as important as they are making it right now. They cannot be expected to understand not enforce freedom of speech nor religion.

What she did not say is what you just insinuated. She never said our constitution was no good for us or that she did not like it on principle, only that it made no sense to be pushing it in Egypt or any other Middle East country.

Just,

Too bad you are brainwashed. Marriage predates any modern religion. No religion has any claim to the term "marriage". Any that do, do so immorally.

I would expect the SCOTUS would issue a narrow ruling that would invalidate DOMA and the Federal Government making a distinction on a Marriage that a state recognizes, but not so broad as to require individual states to recognize those marriages. That will have to be a separate ruling to come down the pike after the uproar about invalidating DOMA and preventing Federal discrimination.

I have zero problems with gay marriages, but I have a lot of problems with the bigoted people, religions, and other racist groups that want to take away the Gay and Lesbians rights in America. They work and pay taxes just like the rest of the American people, they fight in the wars and die also. They are entitled to 100% equal rights under the laws and the us constitution.

If the bigoted religious people don't like it, the leave the USA. You won't be missed.

Devil's son - I'm never going to watch the Super Bowl the same way again.

Ummm, the US constitution is antiquated. I love it, but as a functional document there are far better models out there. Germany's constitution for example is fantastic. They used our help, and all the issues we had struggled with in our constitution and generated a far more functional document.

Our constitution was a first of it's kind. A great document. But like anything, it has been learned from, and improved upon.

Mike MM: "Why do you need the government's approval to be married anyway? Why doesn't the government make rules defining a civil union and leave the whole marriage issue to churches. The civil union could give a couple the same contractual rights that a married couple has without having to worry about religious beliefs."

You need government's approval because only government recognized marriage is recognized for all the benefits that flow from it..Social Security, survivorship, inheritance...etc...doesn't matter what the hell your church says...if your church doesn't recognize your second marriage but the government does, guess who wins? Case closed on this issue.

When you're ready to tell a heterosexual couple that their ceremony performed in front of a Justice of the Peace at City Hall is not a marriage but a civil union, come back to me and I will entertain your argument.

How wrong you are about civil unions...it does not grant anywhere near the same benefits, tangible or intangible, that the status of marriage provides as recognized by the government. You make the argument that civil unions would provide the same benefits as marriage but without the religious component, yet the same people who argue that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry shouldn't be allowed to get civil unions either because of religious beliefs...but if after all this you still believe that civil unions are the same as marriage, which one do you want for yourself???

In my non-expert legal opinion, that would be a VERY easy decision. One group of people religious and/or personal beliefs CANNOT be the grounds to deny someone else a privilege afforded and provided by the Federal government. And this is what many opponents to gay marriage can't seem to get.

And NO!!!, civil unions is not enough. The government should not treat any other citizen as "less" than you because of what your beliefs are, or whether or not you think something is gross or "unnatural" or however you want to spin it. Separate but equal also doesn't work. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander - even if the gander likes other ganders or the goose like other geese.

On a related note, how come the plural of goose is geese but the plural of moose isn't meese?

Gabriel Cammonescro, where in the Constitution does it say anything about seperation of Church and State? What it says is 'the Federal Government shall make no laws concerning religion'. That is there for one thing because at that time three of the founding states had their own state religion and they didn't want the federal govenment to come in and tell them they had to change like what happened in Great Britain, etc. The Soviet Constitution had a clause about seperation of church and state. Marriage is a Biblical union between one man and one woman. I believe a gay couple should be allowed to have a civil union, but not a marriage. I also don't believe gays should recieve special treatment and get special rights. Where is it going to stop if that happens? Next pedophiles are going to want special treatment for there lifestyle choice and those who like having sex with animals will want their union legalized and be called a marriage.

Last month when the big uproar happened over the owner of Chick-fil-a expressing his opinion, the gay community was in an uproar boycotting Chick-fil-a's and here at least a gay-owned restaurant was handing out 'love sandwiches' saying that him expressing his opinion was 'hate'. If straight people boycotted a gay-owned business they would be labeled 'haters' and 'bigots' but it is ok for gays to do the same thing? THAT is discrimation.

It is like the bs going on because of a film that just happened to be produced here in American by an Egyptian national showing Mohammed in a bad light and so Muslims are burning American flags. Now if Christians were to react the same way over all the propaganda the radical Muslims we would again be ostracized.

Gays want to be treated equal but only their interpretation of it. Sttraight people can't disagree with their lifestyle choices but they have every right to do that to straight people. What hypocrites.

Seems like a lot of arguing over semantics to me. You can call it marriage, holy matrimony, or civil union, but it all boils down to this ...

Making same sex marriage illegal is discrimination, pure and simple.

Call it whatever you like, but I say call it all marriage and if churches don't want to perform the ceremony fine, go elsewhere.

Problem solved.

Al though I am not gay, or have any desire to be and know this is not for me, I think everyone should have EQUAL RIGHTS....

.....EVERYONE!

@ The Overlord..

Where did you get the definition of marriage? You say you got married, but where did that come from? Go to the root of the word and the history of the word and find out how marriage came about. You might then find yourself wishing for a civil union since you claim to be atheist. You can't call yourself black if you are not and you can't call yourself Canadian if you are not...so are you married?

Wesley,

The 1st Amendment actually says regarding religion:

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

This means that no laws can be created based on a particular religion and we can't be forced by the govt to believe in or practice a religion or be prohibited from practicing. This means that the gov't cannot disallow gay marriage based on any sort of religious definition or argument. You can stand in front of a minister all day and say your vows and receive blessings, but unless you complete the government marriage licensure process you are not legally married. Marriage is defined by the civil laws, whereas matrimony is the religious aspect of it. People get married every day without any religious connotation whatsoever and guess what, they're just as legally married!

the only people that want this is the gays and the divorce lawyers

Submerged Lumber Guy, your argument is as lame as you are. Gay marriage is not about polygamy, it is not about bestiality, it is not about pedophilia and it is not about necrophilia. Did allowing interracial marriage cause any of those things? No. Did the world end when the military was integrated? No. Did the world end when the slaves were freed? No. Run around spouting your Chicken(a fil A) Little the sky is falling BS all you want. No one is buying it!

Wesley Quigg, to start with the first amendment establishes the separation of church and state by preventing any attempt to write religious views into law.

h##p://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp

The founding fathers knew the effects of allowing religion to get involved in political power as it had in England and the earlier colonial governments. Shall I review the history of the witch trials for you?

Marriage is not nor has it ever been biblical. There are no marriage ceremonies recorded in the bible, nor are there any vows proscribed in the scriptures. Even if there were, such scriptures would not be binding as law, due to the first amendment of the constitution. The bible is not the law of the land for good reason. Reference my earlier comment on the witch trials.

The gay community is not asking for special rights, just the civil rights due every American citizen guaranteed by the constitution. Remember the words? They can be found in both the Declaration of Independence and the constitution.

h##p://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

h##p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Chick-Fil-A got what it asked for when Dan Cathy foolishly announced his personal views against the gay community were also the official policy of the corporation he owns. The use of corporation funds as a weapon of social repression is an old fear in this country. Too many times, we have seen the ill effects of big business using its financial might to push people around. Besides, the food sucks. If that stuff can be called food at all.

As to your comment on the so called lifestyle choices of the gay community. When in your life did you actively decide to be heterosexual? I could ask a question at this point using a disturbing food preference analogy, but I'll refrain from that one. Can you even remember making that distinction, or did you just accept your sexual orientation as fact?

Contrary to conservative views, sexual orientation is not a choice. People are born with their sexual orientation preprogrammed into them from fetal development.

h##p://media01.commpartners.com/AMA/sexual_identity_jan_2011/index.html (video)

No pulpit propaganda, just cold hard scientific fact.

Just put the t's back in place of the #'s.

I just hope the SCOTUS puts this issue to bed quickly and gets it out of the way. Since we're discussing sexual depravity and its legal status, lets talk about how the pedophiles suffer from these discriminatory age of consent laws. Or the polygamists, they suffer from discrimination too.

Seriously, that's whats coming next. Mark my words.

The fringe elements or our society aren't going to let up until society as we know it doesn't exist.

i want 7 wives different one everyday, redhead, blond,brunette,Japanese,Chinese,Latino,and an Eskimo

GI JOE-1977278 - Since we're discussing sexual depravity and its legal status, lets talk about how the pedophiles suffer from these discriminatory age of consent laws. Or the polygamists, they suffer from discrimination too.

Seriously, that's whats coming next. Mark my words.

Funny how you bigots used the exact same arguments when you were fighting against mixed-race marriage.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

Can't you come up with more relevant arguments rather than recycling the same moronic nonsense?

The term marriage needs to be removed from the laws, all laws. Marriage is a Christian rite defined as a covenant entered into by one man and one woman with God. Put civil unions in place for your “legal contract.” Then everyone can have a “legal” relationship with whomever you want. Those of us who want to enter into a holy marriage covenant can do so through our churches.

Marriage is a hell of a lot older than Christianity (and has changed drastically even within codified legal systems). You can't just come along and claim it because you like the word. Every nation in the world performs marriages (in a whole lot of different ways), it's not exclusive to a particular religion or culture.

Skrekk you are wrong on what Mike mm said. You missed his point.

He says make the govt recognize only Civil Unions for all...THis eliminated Marriage from any legal status. I fully support that concept. I could choose to get Married but not have it have any legal status. What would constitute a Marriage would be completely up to me. It could be up to my church, it could be up to any criteria I choose for it. I could hire Mickey Mouse to perform a marriage for me. All 'legal marriages' would be grandfathered in as Civil Unions.

Thats what Mike advocated. He was for full equality and leave Civil Union contracts to the Government and Marriage as a non-legal term used by anyone under any criteria they chose...this eliminates the Marriage is a Religious Institution argument. Some Churches would choose to perform same sex marriages, some would not. I could choose to have a marriage ceremony but not to have it have any legal status.

Get the government out of the marriage business

FYI I am a gay man who has been 'married' for just under 20 years...and I don't recognize the governments right to recognize my marriage.

But we are going to have a ceremony next Feb on our 20th Anniversary, It will be a combination Anniversary party and ceremony (And I live in a state where I can get married--we have reasons why we don't want the legal aspect...mostly economic) But we may just be after the gift as well!

Gi Joe,

How does changing the gender of a single party entering into a contract, lead to the repeal of laws banning pedophilia?

Ever heard of informed consent and legal capacity?

Whiskey you want 7 wives a day?

OK

Become a Mormon

But I have a funny idea that you cannot even get one woman a year with your attitude

justicenonexistent

The term marriage needs to be removed from the laws, all laws. Marriage is a Christian rite defined as a covenant entered into by one man and one woman with God. Put civil unions in place for your “legal contract.” Then everyone can have a “legal” relationship with whomever you want. Those of us who want to enter into a holy marriage covenant can do so through our churches.

You're basing your entire life on a delusion (that of a loving god actually existing), so it's not surprising that you can make a leap to the delusion that marriage is an exclusively Christian rite. You're completely wrong on this point, of course, but don't let things like facts, history, or reality dissuade you from your idiocy.

Does your model of marriage therefore invalidate the billions of non-Christian marriages throughout the world? Seems like it.

You are literally too ignorant to even have this debate with if your platform stems from a genuine belief that "marriage" is limited to one Christian man and one Christian woman. Good grief. But hey, you folks believe in talking snakes, too, so this shouldn't come as a real shock, I guess.

from Wesley Quigg (Post #1.37)

Marriage is a Biblical union between one man and one woman.

Not even close, Wesley. Marriage is a civil contract, just like it has been since long before the bible became the greatest compilation of lies ever told.

where in the Constitution does it say anything about seperation of Church and State?

Wesley - let's talk about language in the Constitution.

The second amendment refers to the "right to bear arms", but it never LITERALLY says that we can "own guns" or "purchase ammunition" or "manufacture weapons". But nobody would seriously suggest that we cannot "own guns" simply because that phrase doesn't appear LITERALLY and VERBATIM in the Bill of Rights. And we know damn well what the second amendment means because the founders explained it in their writings.

The same thing applies to the first amendment. It doesn't have to LITERALLY contain the VERBATIM phrase "separation of church and state" or even "freedom of religion" (that's not there either). The founders wrote plenty about this amendment, especially the religion part. Here are some samples:

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State." (James Madison)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (James Madison). [Notice that Madison wants religion to stay out of government, NOT the other way around.]

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." (Thomas Jefferson)

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." (Thomas Jefferson). [Notice Jefferson's semicolon. Everything BEFORE the semicolon is freedom OF religion, and everything AFTER the semicolon is freedom FROM religion.]

According to the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the "Father of the Constitution" who also wrote the first amendment, Separation of Church and State is DEFINITELY in the Constitution.

That's good enough for me. As long as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson say 'Separation of Church and State" is IN THE CONSTITUTION, it's in there.

Marriage is a Christian rite defined as a covenant entered into by one man and one woman with God

So, Jewish people can't get married? Nor Buddhists? Nor Muslims or Scientologists or Santerians or Pastafarians or Hindus? Only Christians, huh?

Well, thanks for that knowledge. I'll be sure to pass it on to all my non-Christian friends that they're not really married.

The day is coming when we will see pedophiles, rapists & the like seek protection under the law. The laws in place to protect "sexual orientation" will be expanded to protect any and all forms sexual perversion.

God help us all

Frankly True - Skrekk you are wrong on what Mike mm said. You missed his point. He says make the govt recognize only Civil Unions for all...THis eliminated Marriage from any legal status. I fully support that concept. I could choose to get Married but not have it have any legal status.

I understood Mike's point, and he was wrong on multiple levels. First he's obviously confused the civil legal contract of marriage with the religious rite of holy matrimony. He seems unaware that all marriages in the US are simply "civil unions" by another name. No church is needed for any marriage in the US - mine certainly had none involved. Similarly, "holy matrimony" has no legal status whatsoever.

Second, he's unaware that civil unions (vs marriage) have little or no federal, interstate or international recognition. Good luck changing all those laws to read "civil union", and good luck getting all those married folks like me to agree to exchange their marriages for civil unions. Why would I agree to legally disadvantage myself in that way?

@ frankly been married for 17 yrs , and still counting. guess you didn't see the sarcasm

I do not look at this under the guise of a social issue. My issue is with the financial aspect of what this will cost taxpayers if Same sex couples are granted marriage benefits. I could give a flying duck about the definition of marriage. What should happen now , seeing as how this country has mostly fallen away from the religious aspect of marriage, is to remove any and all benefits from any and every married couple. When over half of all marriages end in divorce and with the fickle attitudes people enter into marriages nowadays, why should they get a benefit over those who choose to live together. A family unit is a unit no matter how it is defined, Why should a contract enable those who enter into it a huge perk over those who live the same exact way just without the marriage license. How can this country absorb another entitlement on top of all the other entitlements on record and those that will be coming from Obamacare. America cannot afford to keep giving away taxpayer money that we do not have and cannot afford. This whole thing should be addressed by eliminating all marriage benefits. Doing so would pretty much gut the argument and reduce it to Activist LBGT who just want to usurp the term marriage and religious zealots who want marriage preserved in their belief systems.

My issue is with the financial aspect of what this will cost taxpayers if Same sex couples are granted marriage benefits.

Homosexuals pay taxes, too, so YOU are not subsidizing their right to marry.

Dom-462174 - My issue is with the financial aspect of what this will cost taxpayers if Same sex couples are granted marriage benefits.

Great idea! Maybe we could save more money if we denied marriage to mixed-race couples too?

How about Jews.....more cost savings there as well. Heck, why stop at marriage - let's simply deny gays, Jews and mixed-race couples all federal benefits.

Or maybe we could just start by denying elderly bigots social security. As the bigots die off due to lack of money to buy food, all of society will benefit. That would free up lots of money so that gays, Jews and mixed-race couples could have their civil rights restored.

My point is that the country cannot afford to pay out benefits to an additional, however many millions of Gays, who will be filing for marriage benefits. We should eliminate all benefits as a way to save money while leveling the playing field for all taxpayers, not just married couples and soon to be recognized married couples. There should be NO marriage benefit at all.

SKREKK,

WTF, how did you deduce that pile of drivel from my post. I am not advocating for anyone being banned from marriage. How about reading my post thru before making that jump. My argument is to remove any benefit from the act of marriage. Why should married couples get a break that non married people don't get. I have two children and i am not married. Why should i be denied a benefit that someone who decided to contractually join with another gets. My family is just as much a unit as theirs. Marriage has become a joke in this country and few take it as serious as it should be. When the average span of a marriage is seven years, that does not warrant extra perks and benefits. Maybe if we want to strenthen that we should only allow benefits after ten years of marriage. If you want the benefit then you better be fully informed and willing to work thru problems as opposed to treating marriage like an old worn shirt and replacing it when you become bored.

The term marriage needs to be removed from the laws, all laws. Marriage is a Christian rite defined as a covenant entered into by one man and one woman with God.

Demonstrably false. Marriage predates Christianity and even Judaism.

My point is that the country cannot afford to pay out benefits to an additional, however many millions of Gays, who will be filing for marriage benefits.

So, you're saying that the government depends on gays in order to help balance the budget? Do you think that interracial manages should have remained illegal because allowing them cost more in benefits?

What if two gay men each marries a lesbian (four gays total) ... would you allow benefits in that case, or deny them? If you allow them, then you're being hypocritical in denying benefits to two same-sex couples, while allowing them for two mixed-sex couples since the cost would be the same.

I strongly feel that when gay marriage becomes law that we have to take back all the laws that have been written to grant same sex couples the right to health care and pensions and everything else that was granted to married couples.

There are relatively few such laws and few would use them anyway if marriage was an option because of the adverse tax consequences (i.e. health benefits are taxable benefits to domestic partners).

tyler

Sonar Guy, zipperthecat, Olivia Forever, BLOW ME TYLER ! banned, rereg of zipperthecat.

Definitely one of the most inartful trolls I've read.

What kind of knucklehead gets banned and then uses the name BLOW ME TYLER and expects to not get noticed, what a Maroon.

Just something everyone on here should think about (especially those who do nothing but respond with weak evidence and/or personal insults). For every finger you point at someone, you have three pointed at yourself. Also dealing with absolutes is flawed in my opinion. Just because someone doesn't agree with one group doesn't mean they hate every other group. A good example (one which I was accused of) is that because I don't believe in automatic amnesty for illegal immigrants I must hate all hispanics. Another (which is relevant to this board) is when I disagreed with someone over taking federal funding from churches that will not perform same sex marriages. This would in effect force some churches to perform the ceremonies, even if they are against them. One last point is that no government should ever force someone to accept something that goes against their values and beliefs. That goes against everything that we as a free nation stand for. Well i've said enough for one day. Have a nice day all.

Snk13 -- NO ONE is forcing you, or anyone to accept anything. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, THEN DON'T GET ONE! You don't have the right to force your religious beliefs onto other tax paying American citizens, who should have EVERY right to expect equal representation under the law. It's that simple!

I fully support the right of homosexuals to be as miserable as the rest of us.

@Denver bill

Last time I said that my fiance slugged me and left the room, and my Mother didn't talk to me for a week. It was a peaceful week.

GedePrime-548136,

I know what you mean. Same thing happened when I was overheard saying, "I asked my wife what she wanted for her birthday. She said she wanted something that goes from zero to 160 in less than 6 seconds. So I got her a scale."

A slippery slope. Next it will be pedophiles asking for equal rights. Than what, bestiality? For all of human history in every culture there has been a prohibition on homosexuality. It wasn't until Hollywood made it fashionable that you had this argument. Next the government will make it mandatory. and America will go the way of the Shakers.

A slippery slope. Next it will be pedophiles asking for equal rights.

Same argument was made when arguing for miscegenation laws. Further, most pedophiles are straight, so I guess the more logical concern would be normal marriages being slippery slope for pedophilia. Stupid argument, no?

For all of human history in every culture there has been a prohibition on homosexuality.

Ummm, false. Many times throughout history gay people were allowed to marry. But don't let facts get in your way.

Next the government will make it mandatory. and America will go the way of the Shakers

Wow, you need to loosen up. That is one outlandishly nutty comment.

Mike. That is the worst slippery slope argument I have ever heard. (all slippery slope arguments are fallacies, by the way) Minors and animals cannot legally consent to marriage. But you and your kind just kind of gloss past that so you can spew this crap.

A slippery slope. Next it will be pedophiles asking for equal rights. Than what, bestiality?

Debunked claptrap. Try again.

Well, when you come right down to it, if there's a slippery slope, it began with heterosexual marriage. So, let's end heterosexual marriage!

Wow!!!! Mike got 3 votes..........now thats just scary.....LOL!

The rush to pass DOMA was strategic, in terms of the shifting demographic. It would not pass today.

In a democracy, the first bulwark against public opinion shifts is the 'representative' portion of our representative government. Even though 50% + 1 of the district want X, that representative can say 'no', and go against the will of the very people who sent him/her there to represent them. The next bulwark is the court. And finally, there will be the U.S. Constitution.

As it stands now, the fundamentalist right-wing have succeeded in securing the first and second bulwarks. If Romney gets elected, I wouldn't be surprised to find them shooting for the 3rd bulwark -- thereby amending the Constitution to discriminate against homosexuals.

Epinnoia,

You give Romney to much credit. He's not really concervative he's just trying to sound that way now because he wants to get elected. Why do you think even common sense concervatives (yeah I know hard to believe there are any) don't like the idea of him running. They know that he's just a flip flopper that will say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes and they don't trust him to be concervative if elected.

ckbry - You give Romney to much credit. He's not really concervative he's just trying to sound that way now because he wants to get elected.

Here's how Dan Savage responded to that:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/09/20/watch-dan-savage-says-mitt-romney-homophobe

"Whether someone punches you in the nose because they really hate you, or they punch you in the nose because they want to impress people who hate you, you still have a broken goddamn nose," said Savage. "I'm not going to look into Mitt Romney's stoney little heart, I'm not going to bust open that bank vault in the Cayman Islands and retrieve his heart to look at it. What I care about is policy — and his policies are homophobic and by my estimation, that man is a homophobe."

Speaking for myself as the parent of a gay kid and an employer with a few gay employees, there's no way in hell I'd vote for a bigot like Romney.

So? Not everyone who gets married reproduces. My husband and I haven't or ever will... should we get divorced now?

There are plenty of people beyond their reproductive years who get married - I guess their marriages are not valid or less significant?

@ Vincent - as far as interracial being as old as time, so is homosexuality. There are many references through history of kings being totally gay. In Japan many of the Emperors geisha were feminine MEN dressed as women. The equipment hadnt been changed, just the look. Don't tell me there were no other choices for the Emperor than another man.

This issue is so ridiculous its not even funny at this point. Generally I would laugh at the narrow minded people, but now I'm so frustrated with them i want to punch them in the face for being so stupid. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't harm me or anyone else. So if you are a guy and love a guy, who am I to say you can't? You can't stop me from cussing up a storm, even though some consider it morally wrong to do so. How is this different? Because the word marriage is used? thats such a weak argument. I want a real reason. I want to hear that LGBT are literally killing babies or something, and their marriage is the reason they are doing it. Otherwise, keep your morals and your high ground to yourself, itll be very lonely up there.

It's different from inter-racial marriages. Men and women from different races have been reproducing with each other for all of time. Male-male and female-female couplings have never been reproducing and will not do so for a very long time.

Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage. It is irrelevant.

Vincent Denali - your argument is flawed.

Not to mention people have been reproducing WITHOUT getting married (or unioned). There is no legal requirement that you MUST get married and that you MUST produce children. Marriage is a joining of two people who love each other. Whether they produce children or not is irrelevant.

Even Scalia, the most conservative Justice on the Court, said that not having children will not be an argument considered against same sex marriage, should it come before them, in his opinion in Lawrence v Texas.

sex = reproduction, marriage = love (but someone should tell my wife that, ZING!)

sweetsweetdrew - marriage = love (but someone should tell my wife that, ZING!)

Actually marriage = a property & liability contract. No love is required by the state.

I want to hear that LGBT are literally killing babies or something, and their marriage is the reason they are doing it. Otherwise, keep your morals and your high ground to yourself, itll be very lonely up there.

In the twisted realm of the far-Right, you'd be guilty for NOT having the babies you were 'supposed' to have. See -- first they imagine the child as being real. Then they proceed to BLAMING you for 'murdering' those imagined children.

I've seen this mindset working its magic on right-wing minds, and it's quite amusing -- if not downright scary. In their own words -- homosexuals are sinning against their race. They believe the true victim of the homosexual activity is the race itself -- especially in areas of 'dwindling' whites...

Not really. He's scared to death of turning gay.

More likely the court will simply rule that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of the relative gender of one's spouse, just like it can no longer discriminate on the basis of the relative race of one's spouse.

Tom,

Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of incest laws?

Since there are scientific reasons that incest is dangerous I doubt we'll see relatives grated marriage. I do agree however that marriage will be redefined as the economic and legal contract that it most certainly is and may apply more broadly. I also see a day where several people may be allowed to enter into a marriage contract (polyamory, polygamy, etc) as there is no non-religious justification to ban it. As religions lose their strangehold on politics and the legal system I think we'll see a shift away from Christian/religious laws towards more secular ones.

Why is it people against marriage equality, instantly want to start marrying their sons and daughters, or a pet, or even their car?

;)

Krestov,

Or their toasters? That one always gets me. Why would anyone want to marry a toaster?

Why is it people against marriage equality, instantly want to start marrying their sons and daughters, or a pet, or even their car?

Since they can't make a logical or valid argument as to why same sex marriage should not be legal, the best they can do is making slippery slope arguments. It's quite desparate and pathetic really.

but Sarah, if i didn't have my toaster then i couldn't make yummy toast with lots of melted butter or even peanut butter on it !

so if bigots feel that way about their toaster, then of course they would logically like the right to marry their toaster :)

see ?? LOL

but i do seriously love my toaster .. just not enough to marry it

Phoenyx,

I'm sorely disappointed in my toaster. My toast never tastes as good as restaurant toast. Why is that? We would inevitably end up divorced, because I would be constantly cheating on it, with the diner down the street.

Why would anyone want to marry a toaster?

I don't know about you, but I have one d@mn sexy toaster.

"Just as the Supreme Court surprised people by calling Obamacare a tax, I would not be surprised if it redefined marriage as a long term personal relationship between two people. This relationship would not necessarily be sexual but could allow people to file joint tax returns."

One of my friends had seen her friend's tax returns & was shocked to see the large return she received as a single woman. She later found out this roommate ( now ex roomate) married a man from Mexico so he could get his green card ( the arrangement was set up by her Aunt who had done the same thing). The arrangement was $5K upfront, plus she was able to file as married on her returns. She barley knew this guy, but stayed married to him for 5 years. They lived in seperate residences. If your argument is that gay marriage will lead to tax fraud then you have to outlaw straight marriage as well, because it happens in those cases too.

Sarah !! cheating on your toaster ?!?! *gasp* i'm shocked and appalled !!

altho, i'd be interested in tasting your diner's toast to compare it to my toaster lol

just don't tell my toaster !! shhhh !!!! *this is scandalous!*

I'd be worried the toaster might double-cross me with the coffee maker. They're very close.

Phoenyx,

If you do cheat on your toaster, it had better not find out. Otherwise, I'd recommend not taking baths anymore. You may become truly "shocked"!

I would not be surprised if it redefined marriage as a long term personal relationship between two people

That redefinition happened many decades ago, at least in the US. The truly "traditional" definition of marriage is male-dominated, purely religious (not civil), allows no divorce except in extreme cases and is usually arranged by the couple's parents. It's still done that way in some parts of the world.

Since at least the 1960s, marriage in the US has been completely elective, and carries very few social expectations. Many couples share or reverse the traditional gender roles; there are lots of working wives and stay-at-home husbands, for example. In that context, same-sex marriage doesn't redefine anything at all about marriage.

Matt you rock agreed 1000%

The truly "traditional" definition of marriage is male-dominated, purely religious (not civil), allows no divorce except in extreme cases and is usually arranged by the couple's parents.

Actually, Matt, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years. Religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s.

Not the issue--very few are saying this.

I am not trying to start an argument but friends of mine include sisters that live together and are in their 60's and 70's. Why shouldn't they also be able to get married?

I am not trying to start an argument but friends of mine include sisters that live together and are in their 60's and 70's. Why shouldn't they also be able to get married?

Not sure about brother/sister, but I know cousins can get married at that age in Florida. I see no reason why they can't, its their choice and harms nobody.

Not the issue, Sumy? Then what is the issue? The only retort I have seen against gay marriage is that it somehow erodes straight marriage. This is the major thrust of the opposition, as absurd as it is.

What is the problem with gay marriage?

Sumy42 - Not the issue--very few are saying this.

Actually that's precisely what all the anti-equality hate groups like NOM and the FRC do say - that same-sex marriage somehow "harms" opposite-sex marriage, but they've never been able to justify that idiotic view.

Tom: "I am not trying to start an argument but friends of mine include sisters that live together and are in their 60's and 70's. Why shouldn't they also be able to get married?"

Because that is incest.

The "harm" done to traditional marriage by gay marriage is that allowing "those people" to marry somehow devalues marriage for everyone. To those who object, it's like letting the riff-raff into an exclusive club. How can a person feel superior unless there are others who are defined as inferior?

Robert619 - How can a person feel superior unless there are others who are defined as inferior?

Exactly. Sounds like the same motivation for the anti-miscegenation laws.

More likely the court will simply rule that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of the relative gender of one's spouse, just like it can no longer discriminate on the basis of the relative race of one's spouse.

Skrekk is right. The SCOTUS tends to craft its rulings as narrowly as possible. It won't "redefine" anything. It'll simply strike down all or part of DOMA.

Marriage as a secular civil institute predates any religious involvement in the institute.

Religion can call what they do "Holy Matrimony" (their original term anyway). Marriage belongs to no religion or belief.

Marriage is a secular legal contract. What churches do or don't do is irrelevant, and has no impact on your marital status.

@Allswell/Skrekk: I honestly agree with that, however, the Religious nutjobs in higher office in this country, use their money, power and influence to make 'marriage' a religious institution. No one has gone before any court, and clearly stated the case exactly as you've done so here, and forced religions scummy hateful hands away from what clearly predates any currently followed religion.

As I said, it doesn't have to be this way, however, if that's the game they want to play, see how well they're liked when every marriage in the country is ignored by the Government, and they have to go through civil union to get their precious entitlements. See how they like being refused access to their spouse, at their time of death.

B Murphy - No one has gone before any court, and clearly stated the case exactly as you've done so here, and forced religions scummy hateful hands away from what clearly predates any currently followed religion.

Actually they have as a historical matter. At one time many states confused religious traditions with secular marriage rights, whether it be in regards to divorce and remarriage, inter-faith or mixed-race marriage, the property rights of women, etc. In every state today marriage is entirely a secular matter.....with the exception of the issue of same-sex marriage where there's still clearly religious interference and where many states have adopted the views of bigoted religions.

The only other example I can think of goes in the other direction, where the state of Utah is currently interfering in the religious practices of polyamorous Mormons. That case is currently in the courts and the state is almost certain to lose.

The only other example I can think of goes in the other direction, where the state of Utah is currently interfering in the religious practices of polyamorous Mormons. That case is currently in the courts and the state is almost certain to lose.

What makes you think that the state will lose? Utah doesn't stand in the way of multi-spouse marriage in a religious context. It is only denying secular recognition to the additional spouses. Since no one is permitted multiple legal spouses, the Mormons can't use the "equal protection" argument.

Yes, that's what makes us a Republic. You know, protect the rights of the citizens from majority opinion. You know, if it didn't work this way, we'd still have places down south that were segregated.

Sarah - In case you've never been in the Southeast, there are still places that are segregated, just not legally.

That's their job.

What are you talking about? First, we have a common law system, so yes, precedent, stare decisis, and case law, are followed. Second, SCOTUS decisions are binding, primary authority. Third, they aren't legislating, congress legislated the issue when they passed DOMA, SCOTUS will act as a check on the legislative branch in this case, by making sure DOMA is Constitutional (which it isn't). Third, the executive branch enforces laws, not legislates them.

Sarah, what am I talking about...it's commonly referred to as "The system of Checks and Balances", an attempt to develop republican democracy. The notion that branches of government have separate responsibilities so that no one branch runs the government. There's no debate that the Supreme Court's decisions are (did you type "binding") are legal decisions, but they are only law until Congress passes an Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not a "primary authority", it's a legal authority (I'm not mincing words here). The Executive branch does enact law through interpretation of existing statues and by issuing "Executive Directives" (I can give you several examples from this and several other administrations). Were you smoking dope when you went to the "Civics" class? By the way, it's nice to see such a legal scholar who won't (or is it can't) spell out Supreme Court, it shows a "sloppiness" that is disturbing.

RT,

I'm aware of executive decisions, but they do not make the role of the executive branch a legislative one. If you're really concerned about checks and balances, you would not be a proponent of executive decisions.

Case law is law that is derived from decisions in court cases. In some court cases, there is an existing primary authority that a judge can rely upon to make a decision. For others, a judge will need to interpret the law and provide supporting documentation to bolster that interpretation. Once this is written up in a formal decision, the decision itself becomes a primary authority.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-primary-authority.htm

You said...

but they are only law until Congress passes an Amendment to the Constitution.

Which, how often do they do??? How many SCOTUS precedents have been followed by Constitutional Amendments? Does that make them any less, "law"?

Did you miss this in my first post...

Third, they aren't legislating, congress legislated the issue when they passed DOMA, SCOTUS will act as a check on the legislative branch in this case, by making sure DOMA is Constitutional (which it isn't).

The SCOTUS does not "make law", it interprets it to makes sure that congress didn't screw up by making a law that undermines the constitution, or conflicts with previous law.

Whats,

True, but yes it does also make law. Take for example Buckley v Valeo. No where in any statute or code is there something that says money should be considered speech, but because of that decision, it is, for legal purposes, considered speech.

That interpretation, is considered law. It's primary and binding. We do follow a common law system, as well as statutory. As I posted above.

Case law is law that is derived from decisions in court cases. In some court cases, there is an existing primary authority that a judge can rely upon to make a decision. For others, a judge will need to interpret the law and provide supporting documentation to bolster that interpretation. Once this is written up in a formal decision, the decision itself becomes a primary authority.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-primary-authority.htm

Okay, Sarah...I can follow your point, I disagree with your interpretation of what effect an Executive Order has. It's similar to Court Decision in that it has legal impact, and I agree that it isn't legislative in execution but in it's impact. Think of it in a Kantian fashion...if the President circumvents Congress by using an Executive order, the President takes the power from the Congress and supplants the Legislative branch, thereby becoming legislative in nature if not in title. If a Court decision becomes "primary authority" in the fashion of case law (which is a stretch of "primary"), then doesn't an Executive Order do the same thing?

RT - I believe the only reason this issue has to go to the SCOTUS is precisely because it is an issue that is so controversial, so polarizing and volatile that the states or even the federal government have been unable to enforce a law or not. That is why, when we get that Decree From On High, i.e. the Supreme Court decision, it gives the issue the veritas it needs so that a lot of the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who oppose something can be put to rest. Everybody moves on. Despite the High Court's loss of prestige in recent years, it still commands a great deal of respect from most citizens. Let's just call them the Ultimate Referee in the battle between two - or more - rival teams.

There's no debate that the Supreme Court's decisions are (did you type "binding") are legal decisions, but they are only law until Congress passes an Amendment to the Constitution.

Decisions of the SCOTUS are not "law" in the legislative sense. Striking down DOMA, for instance, won't create law, but will prevent the passage of similar laws as being in violation of the Constitution.

people don't vote on civil rights, or blacks would still be slaves.

Put it on the ballot this november and let the people voice their will.

Equal rights should nver be put to popular vote!

Then lets move on to important issues.

Just because it's n ot important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone else!

Vermontguy your wrong the Northern states voted to abolish slavery between 1777 and 1804.

What is wrong with putting gay marriage on the ballot?

Dave1bg and Jack,

As stated in posts above, popular voting as you are prescribing cannot stand up to constitutional scrutiny when it violates the rights of others. Yes, our rights can be limited, when they have a high propensity to hurt others (yelling fire in a crowded theater is a popular example). Gay marriage has not shown to have this potential to cause others harm. The role of the court system is to make sure that the laws passed by "the people" are in fact constitutional. Just because people voted for something doesn't mean the law is constitutional. Would you like your fellow citizens to vote that you cannot do something in your personal life that doesn't harm others just because they don't like it?

Jack-1220789 - What is wrong with putting gay marriage on the ballot?

Because the civil rights of a minority should never be put to the popular vote of the majority - the minorities will always lose. That's why we have civil rights like equal protection.

Mixed-race marriage would still be banned throughout the south if it had been put up to a vote.

Careful Dav1bg - A very close friend and relative of mine is a lesbian. She has devoted her entire life and career toward the development of programs from schools to medical care and everything in between for gay and lesbian families. Because they do not enjoy the freedoms all of us straight folk take for granted. She has worked tirelessly to help her peers find and/or create the same resources that they need and want, and that we take for granted. Your comment above- "...then let's move on to the important stuff" comes across as ignorant and insulting. There are millions out there who believe that GLBT issues are the most important ones in their lives.

Many states have already put it to the ballot and voted against it every time hence they now have to go to court and make it a civil right issues and of course there is no end to what a group of people will consider a civil right. Marriages were happening long before Govt and Courts ever existed and it has always or traditionally been one man and one women in a religious context. Once you change that definition of marriage then anything goes; one man many women; one women, many men or grownup and child or animal, there is no end in sigh to the perverse things man will come up with. Don't forget in the end it hurts the children who are impressionable and have enuf problems adjusting in the world than to have two mommies and two daddies.

Studies have always shown that a child is best adjusted in a loving environment where there is only one dad and one mom. This was God ordained it is not an accident it is the Law of Nature at work even if you don't believe in God. Gay Marriage is not about letting two people getting married it was alway about destryong the traditional marriage which is good and true as God created it to be and it has always been the envy of those that live in rebellion and try to replicate what they don't have in a perverse and twisted way. When was the last time two men or two women produced a baby on their own, the very lifestyle leads to death and destruction wake up people its not a civil right its perversity at its highest level that mock creation at its very core.

Many states have already put it to the ballot and voted against it every time hence they now have to go to court and make it a civil right issues and of course there is no end to what a group of people will consider a civil right.

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" in 1967, which is why it is not a matter for the legislature. Civil rights cannot be put to a vote.

Marriages were happening long before Govt and Courts ever existed and it has always or traditionally been one man and one women in a religious context.

WRONG. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s. And in this secular nation, legal marriage is and has always been strictly a civil contract.

Once you change that definition of marriage then anything goes; one man many women; one women, many men or grownup and child or animal, there is no end in sigh to the perverse things man will come up with.

You obviously have no clue about what "legal consent" means, or that polygamy was made illegal over 120 years ago.

Don't forget in the end it hurts the children who are impressionable and have enuf problems adjusting in the world than to have two mommies and two daddies. Studies have always shown that a child is best adjusted in a loving environment where there is only one dad and one mom.

WRONG AGAIN. Unless you can provide unbiased, peer-reviewed studies to prove your statement. However, all of the reputable scientific and medical organizations have contradicted your ignorance:

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus non-heterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006

When was the last time two men or two women produced a baby on their own, the very lifestyle leads to death and destruction wake up people its not a civil right its perversity at its highest level that mock creation at its very core.

What does that have to do with marriage?

Unfortunately for christo-bigots like you, God does not make our laws; we are a secular nation.

And let's not forget that Tom Cruise, recently divorced, is now "interviewing" for his 4th wife.

Yes...heterosexuals are doing a FINE job of making a mockery out of the sanctity of marriage without any help from anybody else.

LOLS @ Oilman. Good one.

and my 2 cents: to the haters: do you think that when the aliens come down here, they're going to see gay or straight or asian or black? We are ONE RACE. The human race are all of us regardless of the different suits we're wearing. We need to stick together and get strong. Wake up sheeple.

so there.

LGBT marriages should be recognized, period.

If you really think gay marriage will damage your heterosexual marriage, then face it, it must not be that great a marriage to begin with. And if you really think gay marriage is against God's law, well, God doesn't need your help in identifying or dealing with sinners. He's got it, he can do just fine without your help, and you're not spotless yourself, so just chill and MYOB.