This will actually create rather interesting legal cases. What happens if a couple is married in one state but moves to another. Is that marriage invalidated. What happens with custody hearings for divorce cases when one parent decides to leave the state?

What happens if a couple is married in one state but moves to another. Is that marriage invalidated.

If I'm not mistaken, the full faith and credit clause in the constitution should eliminate that problem.

Its always a great day in this country when equality wins out. Congratulations Washington. And thank you for leaving the dark ages behind.

doggy: Same rules as applies now. When DOMA is struck down by the SCOTUS, states will be required to recognize the marriages. Same rules for custody will apply as apply to heterosexual couples.

The only difference is that in Washington state (and a few others) you and be gay and married.

In some states, they stone you if you are gay, in WA, you can get stoned whether or not you are gay.

My marriage is one man & one woman (me), but we both voted yes for Ref 74 - because it was the right thing to do. I see in the future where equality will be celebrated by all.

The marriage is NOT invalidated if the couple moves to a state that doesn't have marriage equality. The new state won't recognize the marriage, but as far as the original state is concerned, the couple is still married. The issue of divorce is complicated. The new state probably won't issue a divorce because it doesn't recognize the marriage, but the original state won't issue a divorce because the couple no longer lives there.

DOMA has been struck down by multiple federal courts. When the Supreme Court upholds the rulings, hopefully these problems will go away.

What happens if a couple is married in one state but moves to another. Is that marriage invalidated.If I'm not mistaken, the full faith and credit clause in the constitution should eliminate that problem.

My apologies, but yes you are clearly mistaken. If this were
so, then one state could create national policy for all states. Put simply, one
state could pass a law and subsequently have its citizens go from state to
state demanding full faith and credit clause. With that being said, all states would
be forced to recognize legal marijuana, same-sex marriage, etc…On that basis, wonder
what would happen if a sovereign state had laws opposing those views? Obviously, the sovereign state would have to bow down to the other state’s new laws, throw their laws out the window and apologize to its citizens that their vote counts for nothing because the another state says so.

@Barry-NJ: Actually on Oct 18th 2012, 2nd Circuit Court affirmed lower court ruling that DOMA section 3 was unconstitutional in the case Windsor vs U.S. The case is to be heard by the US Supreme Court. There are a few other cases pending in US Sup Ct regarding the constitutionality of DOMA. Right now the SC leans 5-4 towards the right. But, they still upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer, so anything is possible. I'm hoping that DOMA is ruled unconstitutional and this becomes a non-issue.

@Jamie7250285: You are correct. The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution does not apply in this case. The reason is that back in 1996, the DOMA bill was ratified, and signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton. DOMA gave the states the exclusive right to be able to legally define marriage. There is no Article or Amendment in the US Constitution that specifically gives federal gvt the power or jurisdiction to define marriage, therefore by default, states have power under the 10th Amendment. The only way to get rid of DOMA is either for it to be repealed by 2/3rd majority vote in both HOR and Senate, or for it to be found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

In some states, they stone you if you are gay, in WA, you can get stoned whether or not you are gay-dirp

Kind of sad this still happens around the world. By the way I used to get stoned - oh my so many years ago. I have to say I inhaled!

The SACRED institution of god-given marriage, for true believers like Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Mitt's grandpop, all those lovely people. Get over it folks of the opposition, it's over and you lost.

8=====> <=====8 :) :) :) :) !!!!!

When you try to deny rights for others, you would have less rights for yourself.

Simple concept. We all have the same rights, say 100, if you deny 3 rights from others, you would now have 97 instead of 100. Then if someone else come along and deny 4 rights from you, then we all would end up with 93 rights instead of 100 at the end.

So keep trying to deny rights from others and in the end, you may have a wake up call to see you have almost no rights at all.

God has not lost! Look at the destruction of Sandy! There will be more!

@ManWomanGod

So, before all this, what was God reason for?

Your posts are hilarious. Chill the f*ck out, Tammy Faye. Go to church tomorrow and talk to your serpent. Then go home and worry and cry for days about all this. We'll just keep moving on, thanks. :)

There is no hell. So go back under your rock and cry!!! This is the real world, not your biggot world of hate!!

Hey there Notsosure10, Your ignorance is showing! Come on "horses or whatever" and insinuating that "wedding guests" are all going to be under the influence of Marijuana is not only extreme but also unrealistic! Speaking as a Washingtonian a wise friend recently taught me this phrase and i think in this situation its appropriate it goes a little something like this neener neener neener !

I've heard it many times, that is God casts his wrath upon man through epic natural disasters because of man's sinful ways. What a load of hooey.

If I'm not mistaken, one part of DOMA is being challenged by the lawsuits...the part that denies federal recognition of same sex marriage carried out by the states...I don't believe it has to do with one state recognizing the marriage from another state. That part of DOMA is not being challenged as far as I'm aware so if the court "strikes down" DOMA, because it is not part of the lawsuit, the states will still be allowed not to recognize a same sex marriage license from another state.

This is the problem a lot of gay people face when their job takes their family to states that don't recognize their marriage...they essentially become legal strangers.

@Barry-NJ: Actually on Oct 18th 2012, 2nd Circuit Court affirmed lower court ruling that DOMA section 3 was unconstitutional in the case Windsor vs U.S. The case is to be heard by the US Supreme Court. There are a few other cases pending in US Sup Ct regarding the constitutionality of DOMA.

@People ... I was aware of those cases when I made my statement. I was trying to be clear that DOMA HAS been struck down by Federal courts and will remain that way unless the Supreme Court reverses the rulings.

...so, if marriage is of a "religious" nature, as defined in the bible, and civil "unions" have already been approved by the state, where is the separation of "church" and "state" now.

@Jim ... marriage has been regulated by the state for years now in this country (you need a state-issued license in order for your marriage to be acknowledged for legal purposes), so if there is a breach between the separation of church and state, it happened long ago. Secondly, marriage is a civil institution (one doesn't need to be married in a church). It is "holy matrimony" that is of a religious nature and there are no laws concerning that. So, your concerns are moot.

If I'm not mistaken, one part of DOMA is being challenged by the lawsuits...the part that denies federal recognition of same sex marriage carried out by the states...I don't believe it has to do with one state recognizing the marriage from another state. That part of DOMA is not being challenged as far as I'm aware...

@Sosad .. there are multiple rulings against DOMA, one of which strikes down the entire law (interestingly, no federal court has upheld it). So, if that ruling is not overturned by the Supreme Court, all of DOMA will go away. It is going to be up to the Supreme Court to sort out that cases.

I cant wait until we can marry our dogs and cats and horses, really, wtf.

That's where you're wrong Jim buddy. Cats, Dogs, and other assortment of fun animals and inanimate objects are unable to CONSENT.

Unlike being homosexual, you aren't born stupid. But you sure as hell choose to be.

Jim,

While your hyperbole and hysteria may feel satisfying to you in some degree, they have no basis in reality. Marriage is contract law. That is where it originated, that is where it is still grounded. Marriage arose as a contractual method to convey property rights through inheritance and preserve estates through a contractually-based familial chain of possessory interest. Later, "holy matrimony" was introduced, via religious ceremony for those who chose such psychological bonds. You cannot marry without a license, nor can a marriage be dissolved absent the judicial process. Contract, pure and simple. Minors and animals cannot enter into a valid contract because they lack capacity. Thus, your "argument," devised purely to evoke recoil, shock and horror, is utterly without merit and has absolutely no foundation in fact. If I wasn't laughing so hard, I might give you a D for effort. Alas, it has not reached even that less-than-mediocre apex. While there are many aspects of this debate that are open to honest interpretation and discussion, when you stray so far afield from rationality, you simply eliminate yourself from any serious and substantive conversation.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flagof the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It was in the fifties Eisenhower, put God in the pledge but justice for all has always been there... This country should have no second class citizens...

Your America = vile and repulsive lifestlyle!!!!

Well, then it must be time for you to leave! Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out!

Hopefully by 2014 this issue will be put to rest. It's ridiculous to keep hashing this issue out. Just be done with it already.

Any one complaining about this or comparing it to marrying an animal. Get over it. Its over. Equality won, and won by a majority vote.

Dear "crucie:" It is obvious you and your lefty buddies posting here clearly suffer from a mental malady common to leftists, namely, wishful thinking. In addition, all you succeeded in doing is writing your degeneracy into law in a mere handful of states. You will write it in no more, and you will never write it into the hearts and minds of sensible and normal human beings. Nor will your phony "marriages" ever earn our respect. In the meantime, here's a nugget of truth to chaw on: Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

OldKingBlog - I assume this means that adoption should not be legally recognized, since it is not between biologically related persons and therefore cannot qualify for your supernatural brand of love between a parent and child. It is therefore, "un-natural," as well.

Well said OldKingBlog. It truly is a crime that our political system supports the ignorant and self serving changing the rules to support their habits...

As a life long student of anthropology I can tell you your argument is full of absolute nonsense.

As far as present evidence we have presents the first "families" were small groups of mated members who traveled and followed food sources. Polygamists. But it made sense. When a woman was pregnant or looking after an infant another woman could provide "services". There is also records of homosexuality through history and nature. This persistence gives us what might be the main reason for sex, as we all loose the ability to reproduce long before we loose the ability to copulate in a hetero or homo manner. Pleasure resulting in stress relief and various health effects. Producing young is, of course, important. It has also been noted that for as long as there have been records of human population there have been gays and those who remained single and/or childless. Evolutionary speaking this makes alot of sense also. Parents do not always remain well, or they need help, or they die. As such these childless aunts and uncles in a given population are a serious boon as they can step in when the parents are not fit to or are unable to. This is not always in cases of death or disease. Parents have always looked forward to a occasional break from, or assistance with, their children.

Also my understanding, and those of the friends of mine who study political science, tell me that progress on this matter will be continuing. Polls, progressing social attitudes and the current position of our populations (gays being "out" thus making them a marked part of our current society and less of a social "boogie man") all indicate that the ethos and basis of our culture is rapidly moving toward a wide ranging acceptance of a winder range of lifestyles. This is good as it leads to the better welfare of the society in general. Which also creates less need and suffering. As a moral person this is a good thing to me. As a student of anthropology this means our social structure is becoming stronger and more stable this is even better.

In truth these have always been here. In the 50's for instance more women worked outside the home then not. Not that the far right would ever admit that but sadly for them we do have this on record. Divorce has always been common, even if it wasn't seen in law (it was very common to simply move to another state or government and claim to be single. Records were not well kept but historians have done the leg work). In 18th century america there were abortion mills as most families were as risk of having more kids then they could afford to feed or look after. Or they could be sold into servitude(slavery) - if that was preferred. Make some profit.

There has never been this "moral base" that so many seem convinced of (aside from Oliver Cromwell, which is not something I, (as a person with a soul) would aspire to). There has always been the same thing. People trying to take care of them selves and their families and having varying degrees of success and effect of others. Charles Dickens' "Bleak house" is an excellent example of this as all of the events in the book are takes from things Dickens actually saw happen in his youth.

That we are making an effort to be better to each other is a good thing. A definite sign of social evolution.

Also - keep your fundamentalism out of our science. It's just tacky.

It is obvious you and your lefty buddies posting here clearly suffer from a mental malady common to leftists, namely, wishful thinking. In addition, all you succeeded in doing is writing your degeneracy into law in a mere handful of states. You will write it in no more, and you will never write it into the hearts and minds of sensible and normal human beings. Old King Blog.

Well now I can add degenerate, to commie, socialist, libbie, leftest (I know there is more). Unfortunately you are wrong - I have a normal & sensible heterosexual mind that says it will pass more states every year. Equality will be rejoiced by all hopefully in the next couple of decades.

Wahoo Washington State.

@OldKingBlog

As a former pastor and an evolutionary biologist, allow me to offer you a much-needed reality slap. Are you ready? Good boy...

It is obvious you and your lefty buddies posting here clearly suffer from a mental malady common to leftists, namely, wishful thinking.

Do you mean 'wishful thinking' in, say, the way you ask the sky for magic?

If you learned anything from the events this week, it should have been that your friend in the sky either (a) doesn't exist, or (b) doesn't give two rat's asses about answering your prayers. Or, perhaps (c) this IS his 'will', and you've just managed to mangle it along the way. Countless millions of prayers were offered up, begging Yahweh to actually 'do something'—save this country from the hands of the lefty socialists, those dreaded homos, and those godless heathens... along with other imaginary foes.

Nothing. Not. A. Peep.

Your very perception of existence wreaks of wishful thinking; demonstrably false to anyone without dogma and superstition ruling over reason and fact.

In addition, all you succeeded in doing is writing your degeneracy into law in a mere handful of states. You will write it in no more, and you will never write it into the hearts and minds of sensible and normal human beings.

Ah, degeneracy...

Funny story: Back in seminary, I came across this strange old fragment of papyrus with the title, "The 10 Commandments." (I am speaking hyperbolically, of course, just in case you haven't taken your meds today.)

It seems Yahweh is quite down on bearing false witness. Lying doesn't seem to rank much higher—nay, exactly 'no' higher or lower, as all sin is 'sin'—than homosexual behavior.

Yet you were willing to elect the most obtuse liar in political history to be POTUS.

All politicians lie; indeed, all people, but Romney is a LIAR. There is more than a semantical difference. This is a man who, as viewed from either side of the isle, was willing to say and do anything to be elected President. Yet you find him not to be a degenerate because he places his penis inside of a vagina. Greed, theft, and who knows what else... all okay? All 'non-degenerate'?

How broad-minded of you, theologically speaking.

We'll get into the biology that rejects your religiously-based, nonsensical belief that homosexuality is 'immoral' in a moment. First, I must ask how you cling to the belief that Yahweh's first round of laws, including instructions on how one could sell one's daughter into slavery (becoming property of the owner) remain perfectly moral. Blind faith, right? Anything that Yahweh says is automatically moral, correct?

Yeah, I used to buy that load myself. Then I read a book on circular reasoning.

The book of fables you've based your life upon is full of more degeneracy than humanity can hold. I seriously doubt a few gays having civil union rights will make things any worse.

Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation.

It's time for that biology lesson.

First, I'm rather impressed that you're not a creationist. That's a massive step in the direction of reason, so kudos. However, your views on the evolutionary processes of sexual reproduction are... well, f*cked, if you'll pardon the obvious pun.

Riddle me this: if your designer god 'designed' life, then why do nearly 50% of all pregnancies end with spontaneous abortion? (Read the University of Ottawa's research on that subject if you wish.) The lowest figure is roughy 30%.

Some design, eh? Remember, it's your assertion that evolution "devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation." As a biologist, I would agree philosophically, but the mere fact that life is, in fact, harsh—and ridiculously fragile—any worldview assuming design or intention for sexuality to be merely procreative is borderline insane.

Furthermore, many species procreate asexually, and many either enjoy sex or attempt to procreate homosexually. Some snails mate with females and males equally, for example, apparently not knowing that their god thinks it to be naughty. We see homosexual behavior in virtually every land animal, many sea creatures... I could go on and on.

The bottom line: sex was not 'designed' solely with procreation in mind. It wasn't 'designed' at all (if it were, it's one of the worst possible 'designs' one could imagine.)

I know, I know... "...but we're not animals."

Yes. Yes we are. Deal with it. We're just animals with some clever bits between the ears.

...there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child.

Well, my wife would agree with you (just fyi, I'm as hetero as you are.) However, "natural" affection? Hardly. This is societal affection at best. Again, enter evolution, and toss in a good history book, and an honest reading of your holy book (I'll assume it's the Bible; forgive me if I'm mistaken.)

The vast, VAST majority of history clearly indicates that males spread their seed. Multiple mates were not only the evolutionary norm, they were the societal norm, and that goes for your Old and New Testaments. It's rather obvious in the OT, what with Solomon's bazillion wives, but more subtle in the New (see Jesus' parable of the 10 virgins going to "meet their husband" (singular.)) Paul's exhortations on what constitutes an elder of the church, declaring him to be "the husband of ONLY ONE WIFE", was redacted in about the fourth century to remove "only". Of course, the statement makes no sense if one wife was always the law or the norm, but it wasn't—not legally or culturally, hence Paul's specification on the issue.

Even worse was the historical treatment of children. Yahweh clearly viewed children to be little more than property, especially daughters. Lot had a hell of a drunken luau with his two preteen virgin daughters, citing the wine as his innocence. Let me tell you—I've been three sheets to the wind in my day, but never enough to f*ck my own daughters. Yet Lot wasn't vilified—he was praised as a righteous man. Yahweh also killed kiddos just to teach us adults what's right and wrong (see... well, much of the Old Testament, but the story of David will do.)

Yes, there's a strong affection for our mates and our children, but in MANY cultures, even today, children are not worshiped as they are here. In fact, we'd say they were horribly mistreated, despite the fact that these cultures operate just fine. Many have multiple mates, of course, and the absolute ass you wanted to elect POTUS belongs to a "church" that is famous for upholding the Yahweh-delivered right to multiple wives. Of course, poor Mitt can barely hang with the one he has, I'm sure, and most Mormons eschew what their holy book actually 'says', much like most Christians and Muslims.

Nothing new under the sun indeed, King Solomon.

What right-wingers believe to be 'marriage' is 100% the product of the past 1800 or so years, and even that isn't consistent. It's a manmade institution, not a divine writ... or perhaps you believe your god to be rather schizophrenic with his rules and regs. Therefore, we define what it is as society changes. And trust me—a changin' it is. Rapidly. Just like in every other transitional tipping point in history, the conservative fear-mongerers will attempt to steer up as much panic as possible...and nothing will happen. Much like yet another failed Jesus-is-a-comin' prediction, or, infinitely worse, prayer for a child dying of cancer. Nothing happens. The 5% stroke of luck is met with "miracle!", while the 95% silence is rationalized away as some sort of mysterious will, test, or perhaps even curse.

How absolutely insane.

Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Please point this out in any legal or constitutional document.

You cannot—and the onus of the proof is upon the claimant. So, prove it. This should be fun.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

I just really love the fact you used the word "demimonde". I speak French, so I'll just assume you're not squeezing we heathens into merely the feminine gender role.

"No control over public institutions"... I see. Ever read the Constitution? Bill of Rights ring a bell? Feel free to point out the clause we've all missed that states that homosexuals cannot have control over public institutions. Oh sure, I'm positive that some backass states like Mississippi or Texas have sodomy laws still on their state docs, but let's look at THE DOCS—our foundational docs. Let's see what's there.

Much like most of your assertions and beliefs, you'll find an absolute void.

Perhaps the first word in your moniker should have given away your stance on these matters—old. Yet, I refuse to believe that everyone of a greater age to be so absolutely devoid of wisdom or critical thought.

Perhaps I'm wrong and Thoreau was right. I hope that's not the case.

Excellent post. But my final argument is that I, personally, have no right to tell others they are wrong if what they do is between consenting adults. I am constantly amazed by those who believe they have the right to tell others what to do, sexually, morally, or in any other way. This truly is a free country, which means we are all free to choose how we use our freedom. The only restriction on our behavior is that we may not do harm to others. Given the murder rate in this country, it seems to me we would be better served trying to figure out why Americans are so freaking murderous. We would be better served if we tried to figure out why parents murder their own children, starve them, beat them and sexually assault them. That is true perversion, the harming of innocent children. We have real, serious societal problems in our country, but homosexuality is not one of them.

A little history lesson, Roman had homosexual marriage for almost the duration of the empire. However, as soon as Christian took over, Roman crumbled in less than 100 years.

Long but excellent post Jon. Gives the bible thumping creationist hypocrites something to chew on. Now if the would just read it. Then if they had a modicum of reading comprehension. Then they would have to surrender their propensity to refute facts. Oh well.

I can't help but notice that all those opposed to marriage equality are the ones who keep touting their love of bestiality and their desire to marry an animal.

Those who believe in marriage equality only want to marry another human being. Remind me, who is being 'unnatural'?

oldking said:

Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce.

Whoa right there.

Down in the desert of the southwest, there is a species of lizard called a whiptail lizard. Ages ago hen that desert was a fertile grassland, there were both male and female of the species. however, as climate changed it became a desert, temperatures rose, and as a result of the rising temps all the lizards hatching out were female (ask any herpetologist, cooler temps hatch out males, warmer temps hatch out females.) Despite your assertion that two genders are necessary to procreate, this species does manage to survive in sustainable numbers.

And there are roughly about 1500 other species who do so as well, either reproduce with two members genetically of the same gender, two members who carry both male and female organs, and even reproduce asexually by budding.

A female shark in an aquarium (forget where) had other male sharks to mate with to produce young, yet simply went ahead and procreated without the use of a male--aquarium workers came in one morning and found a shark pup swimming in the tank, and when they examined and genetically tested it, found out all of its DNA came from the female and there was no male contributor DNA. Snakes in zoos have also displayed that tendency too, and they postulate that it probably happens a lot more often in the wild. There's a species of South African frog that changes its gender completely spontaneously.

A zoo in Canada had a colony of penguins. despite their trading carefully to make sure there were plenty of males and females in the colony, two male penguins decided to pair up. None of the other penguins seemed to notice, or even care; they were treated the same as any other mated pair of penguins, even when they later on 'adopted' and orphaned penguin chick and raised it. There was a very good children's book written about it, too.

I would submit, therefore, that same-gender relationships in nature are perfectly natural since many species practice it, and homophobia is the unnatural condition since only one species practices it.

IRONIC is the word when the righties keep squawking about "small" government... less federal and more state and local, yet they're always ready to bring in the federal government for DADT, DOMA, Abortion, Citizens United, etcetera. Yes, I think simply put, the word is HYPOCRITES.

Repent for what? I read history and I remembered people said God will punish us for allowing "inter-racial and inter-faith marriage", then "civil rights", then "women's rights".

Fast forward to the present, we are still here, what's next? God will punish us if we don't kill all Muslim?

Except you're wrong. The majority of the population *does* support gay marriage now (). In 8 years we've gone from no states that allowed gay marriage, to 9 states and Washington D.C. As we know, this year three of those states were voted on and passed. As time goes on the number in support will continue to go up. Of course there will always be hold outs, just as sadly there are still with interracial marriages decades after Loving vs Virginia, but eventually most people will either support gay rights, or just won't care. Given the pace in the last decade, that will be relatively soon.

As for your son freaking out over your answer? There are quite a few reasons he might have done this. First, and most of all, your homophobia will have almost certainly rubbed off on him. That's like saying that the son of a racist is also a racist, so that proves that you're correct for being a racist and everyone else should be too.

Also, 11 years old is a time when a lot of children can't really imagine having sex or a relationship with another person, gay or straight. Or at least admit to having those attractions or views, let alone towards a good friend. The preteen years seem to be a time where kids go either way as to whether they start thinking about eventually being in a relationship and when they're still in the "Ewww, girls/boys have cooties!' stage. Or maybe a little bit of both.

I honestly hope that he didn't react that way because deep down he does have an attraction towards boys and doesn't want you to know, though that's another possibility.

As for having sex with animals, that's just silly. As is your characterization that only gay people (specially gay men) are the only ones who dress in women's clothes/underwear, use dildos, whatever. You'd be patently wrong. I won't be further crude, but many straight people (most probably) have some version of the same types of sex that gay people do. You may as well say that these straight people like to go out and have sex with animals as well because of this.

jerryball--i'm a san diegan and am embarrassed that gay marriage was voted down in our state. we'll get there when the old folks die and the younger generation determines to move forward and provide equal rights to all. legalizing gay marriage will strengthen families and provide a sense of normalcy to the children of gays--win / win in my book.

Actually its worse than that Maryland is south of the mason-dixon line (thats actualy the line that divides Maryland from pennsylvania) so Cali is more in line with the deep south. In MD we have just legalised gay marrige.

" ... we'll get there when the old folks die ... "

Wait just one second here. I'm an "old folk" and I voted for this law. I was proud to be from Washington when our Legislature passed the law that made it legal. I was proud when Governor Gregoire signed it into law. And now I am proud of the People of Washington for affirming it with this vote.

Age has nothing to do with it. Ignorant, hateful, fearful, bigoted people are just that. No matter their age.

Equality for all is one of the core principles of this country. It's in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and with the phrase "with Liberty and Justice for all", in the Pledge of Allegiance.

And that's all this vote does. It says to anyone listening, that in Washington State, we believe in the principles set forth in those words. And that we are willing to stand up against the hate, fear and ignorance that is being used to keep some of our citizens from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. And that here, at least. You are free to love and marry the person you choose.

So to the rest of America I say ....

Please feel free to join with us, and the three other States, where their citizens stood up and were counted. And correct the injustice that is being done.

And if you happen to be in the area. Stop by and share a joint with us in celebration. That's legal here now too.

Damn, it's good to be a Liberal.

and its also good to be a dumba$$, you can stand up and celebrate that too while your buddy's are sticking to eachother in the back room. Nothing to celebrate there except you are all Hetrophobic. Grab your neighbors testicles and say "damn its good to be a liberal".

Jim,

This decision is simply about fairness. Yes, you can cringe about some things and that's probably only natural, but the approval of this matter is about equal rights, not sex acts. I'm straight and as far as I know so are my friends and all I can really say is homosexuality or gay marriage is of no threat to me or them. The threat comes from some folks becoming overwrought about things and despising others. Another thing, being gay has nothing to do with one's political leanings as more than once I can recall a conservative politician coming out of the closet.

Jim,

You could have done that before this law too, seeing as it doesn't legalize homosexuality THAT'S BEEN LEGAL FOR A LONG TIME, but gay marriage.

Oh and I voted for gay marriage in WA state. :) I am proud that in every county, a percentage of people voted for it too. That's because marriage equality doesn't just effect homosexuals, it affects their friends and family.

yes you are in a daze. Most Counties here voted against it. If their was a vote for sex with farm animals you would have found a few votes there too. But then again, you probably already had sex with a farm animal, or your mother or father......or brother or sister. OH WELL.

Jim,

Where do you get this notion that being gay is a step away from or equates with bestiality or incest? It sure seems that's what your previous post reflects.

Sore loser. How is gays celebrating a victory hate? They haven't tried to stop you from marrying whom you love. They are just celebrating a victory. Sour grapes from a bunch of sour grapes.

The same way is is hateful for women to "flaunt" their voting rights?

I could have sworn the black lady sitting on the metro today, while I stood, was rubbing it in my face, too.

You seem to have missed the point. The point is that this loss has only aggravated the losing side's earlier hate. It's the kind of hate that has made people take up arms and kill in anger.

The point is that this loss has only aggravated the losing side's earlier hate. It's the kind of hate that has made people take up arms and kill in anger.

If someone is that bigoted and hateful, I say LET THEM COME. Those advocating for equality have faced violence before and not backed down. Why do you think we would be intimidated, or back off this time?

Really, Sarah! Here's a little nugget of truth as to why your side will (repeat WILL) be defeated. Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation

Yawn! What does that have to do with marriage??? We let infertile people marry. We let people passed the viable child bearing years marry. We let people have children without being married.

Not to mention, a gay man's sperm can still impregnate a woman, and a gay lady's egg can still be fertilized.

Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce.

We've also ALWAYS had infertile people, just like we've ALWAYS had gay people, yet there are still 7 Billion of us, and you don't bitch about "infertiles". Why is that?

Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent

Hate to burst your self grandizing bubble. You don't define normal. Nor do you have any evidence that changing the gender of a single party in a relationship is detrimental to ANYONE.

it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives

I thought it was incumbent we followed the Constitution...

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

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

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

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

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, ask yourselves this...

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? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?

Or, in easier terms...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Traditional marriage predates any mono-theism or organized government, and most likely had a lot more to do with trading goats for women than your opinion of what constitutes "irresponsible" sexual activity.

Sorry, the only nuggets I eat are made of chicken, not bull @!$%#.

Sarah you are one of my new heroes on msn. I've been fighting oldkingblog for a while, but the dude's a stone cold case. That was just one heck of an eloquent bashing. Well done.

THANK YOU!! What a marvelous retort to a featherbrained, twit, condescending, moron who assumes to be the all knowing being with the ULTIMATE pronouncement about marriage.

FOR THAT IDIOT'S INFORMATION: MARRIAGE was an arrangement whereby a woman was INCIDENTAL to the transaction! The REAL value of said deal was for property in the form of land and/or wealth and/or title... the woman might have been also to align two families to ensure a "relationship" that would avert battles because said factions were now related!! The woman was merely a pawn and "love" was NOT an important consideration nor was the woman's wants or desires. This was a man's world.

BUT, I MUST say who the Hell ever gave you "authority" to determine whatever the Hell "irresponsible sexual activity" is? A man "sowing wild oats" is pretty irresponsible if many people were asked, but who really has a right to decide this??? NOBODY. We live in a SECULAR country. Not a theology guided by bibles or korans or any other books somebody may subscribes to. Thankfully, our forefathers agreed NOT to have a national religion and to ensure we would be a secular nation with SEPARATION of church and state. So your only reference are anthropological and therefore limited. Please maintain your opinions accordingly.

check it out ..... you dont have to get married to have children. you dont have to get married to live together and be affectionate. Marriage is a legal ceramony. It makes it legal for the spouse to inheriate when the other spouse dies. If a spouse becomes critically injured the other spouse is considered next of kin and commanly makes decisions for the ill spouse. You can be claimed on insurances. You can file a joint tax return. You dont have to have a huge public wedding to get married. There are many legalities to marriage. If mmarriage were simply a ceromony to celebrate how a couple feels for each other there would be no need for the legalities that go with it. SO marriage is NOT just a peice of paper. That piece of paper is legal and binding. It can keep a persons family from coming in the home and claiming maritle property if one spouse dies. There is alot more to marriage than just procreation and the vows made before a church congregattion. You dont need a church for a wedding. But you do need a wedding to claim the legal benefits of marriage.

And of course, Sarah will need to answer to God someday........if she is given the chance..........if her name is written in the Book of Life. Revelations 20:15

The Fags trying to further their agenda is the same as the Jehova Witnesses coming to my door to claim they are Christians. Please spew your stupidity elsewhere, and quit trying to push it on people who believe something different. No Offense, we dont care, keep it to yourselves. Thats where it belongs.

It's the kind of hate that has made people take up arms and kill in anger.

Says the guy who chose the username "Al Kyda"

And of course, Sarah will need to answer to God someday

This is a funny joke, because there is no God. Get it!? lolololololololololoolololololololololololooooll olo lol ollolo lol ol olo lolololololo lol o

And of course, Sarah will need to answer to God someday

And of course, Sarah doesn't give a @!$%#. Not too concerned.

You know you've lost, when your answer to a legal question is an irrelevant spouting of personal, Biblical interpretation.

ManWomanGod, you'll have to answer for your hate someday.

actually, monogamy greatly reduces the spread of STDs, so same-sex marriage is a very healthy thing.

Also, since straight couples flaunt their relationships in public with holding hands, hugging, kissing, groping hell everything just short of having sex, then you'll just have to deal with it now on all fronts. Get over it sic. The only one sick here is you.

I've never understood that argument. If you think gay sex is inherently more likely to spread disease, then why the hell are you opposed to gay people settling down into monogamous, stable marriages?

please there are alot more hetrosexuals than homosexuals so therefore there is more heteosexual sex than homosexual sex so hetero sexuals cause alot more STDS than homosexuals do THINK.

I get so sick of the haters comparing same-sex marriage to incest.

Before it stated a 'civil contract between a male and female'. So, I guess to answer your question, there never was anything preventing those red herrings you raised.

Butterfly Mage......you clearly DID NOT understand what i just wrote!

I stated that i "certainly support same sex marriage," IM ASKING A QUESTION......is it alright to have such a broad definition of marriage? Who knows......maybe a father/daughter will show up at the alter in Washington State in December to get married?

That is what i meant.....idiot.....

Jessss,

Marriage has ALWAYS been nothing but a civil contract. You're confusing it with Holy Matrimony, which no one in the marriage equality group is advocating churches be forced to perform. Nor would the 1st Amendment ALLOW churches being forced to perform them.

That's one of the reasons why your incest argument is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO illogical.

Tell me, why doesn't straight marriage lead to incest? The only difference between one of those and a gay marriage, is the gender of a single party contracting, so what is inherent in the changing of that gender, that would lead to the repeal of the incest laws already on the books?

Jesssss: presumably there remain other laws on the books regarding incest, ages, competency,etc. that apply to marriage. It is unlikely that the definition of marriage is literally a single sentence as summarized in this article.

@jasoncameron

"The major American Indian tribes such as the Comanche, Cherokee, Iroqouis, and many others did not have gays."

That makes about as much sense as when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that there were no gay people in Iran. LGBT people have been recorded in all societies, since the beginning of time. There is absolutely no proof that if a society acts a certain way it will prevent any forms of homosexualty within that community. Sexualty cannot be predetermined.

Buddhists do not believe that being gay is wrong, and many Christians believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality when it is put in historical and cultural context and read using reason, as Jesus did.

lol, google "native american homosexuality" and its clear that, like every other collection of people, a certain percentage were homosexual.

so much for your post, which goes from incorrect "facts" to just plain biased nonsense about YOUR view of "right" and "wrong".

Yes, and just like Ahmadinejad said, they don't have gay people in Iran either.

I look forward to reading the research that supports your assertion that the "major" American Indian tribes (& "many others") did not have gays. Perhaps it was a survey? "Dear tribe: do you have any gays? check yes / no below". I hear they also don't have any "gays" in Iran either. Must be true. I also heard there aren't any in jasoncameron's household.

Lol back to you, and you will see that there was "possible homosexuality" in 120 of over 500 recognized tribes. Besides the most powerful such as the Comanche, Cherokee, and Iroquois did not have any! I did not say there were not some dumb indian tribes such as the Tonkawa, whom the Comanches hated because the were cannibals and who knows what else. Point is every single bad habit or trait of man exists today as it has since the dawn of time, yet it still does not make it right.

yet it still does not make it right.

Yet it is STILL none of your business since what others do in their bedrooms has zero effect on you.

jasoncameron

You're way off. It's common knowledge that Native Americans historically regard highly their gay members. They are referred to as "two-spirit" individuals and given a special place of respect in thier communities.

http://www.firstpeople.us/articles/the-two-spirit-people-of-indigenous-north-americans.html

By the way, being gay is found in nature, so it's not a choice and it's only your opinion (which thankfully is in the minority in this country) that it's wrong.

Oh, but it does. It matters what is taught to the children. Being taugh that it is okay to pursue the same sex. Crazy!!!!!! Being worried about what God thinks of your child and what some koo coo people are trying to make "OK" is not my business????

lol, you're silly, you've presented no "facts", just your own worthless biased opinion.

Point is, you saying it isn't right doesn't make it wrong. You're just a biased homophobic bigot...a group growing smaller and smaller every day.

PS - and no, it is NOT "your business" what OTHERS are doing that doesn't affect you. that's the concept of "freedom". Read the constitution, you might learn something. :)

How does it feel to be an unpatriotic american trying to deny equal rights to others? I would hope you'd feel ashamed to hate our country's values, but I suspect not...

No, your children are YOUR business, and you can teach them anything you want about what YOUR God or what YOU think about homosexuality. But the road goes both ways, YOU telling someone else's child who happens to be gay, that there's something inherently wrong with them is despicable, because those gay people have NEVER DONE A DAMN THING TO HURT YOU and it's none of your business.

Personally, I think you should teach your kids to mind their own business, but again, that's none of MY business.

However, it becomes ALL of our businesses REALLY FAST, when you try to stick your unproven biases and religion into OUR legislature.

Than we're going to have words.

Oh, Jed7

I figured you would bring up the "natural world". Lets take your gay penguins, well there are necrophilia penguins as well. So, what is your point? I am sure a few native American society's may have had a few homos, but were very few and far between. Most native Americans had one or more wives and respected them. There are so many stories of women and men in native american, not men and men. Not that there were not some homos, but there was alot of misinterpretations. The major tribes like the Comanche, Cherokee, and Iroquois did not have any.

jason: care to prove anything you've said? lol. Or are you thinking we'll just believe you because you're so obviously right? :)

but since you keep calling them "homos", its obvious how biased and immature you are, so your opinions are naturally worthless. :)

Why don't you do your own research. The information is out there. One issue you will run into, is many gays have tried to use native americans as a crutch. Yes, there were some homo indians, but they were still not common. Some societys liked them, most shunned them. The gays are trying to play on the few that accepted them, and try to blanket all indians as being accepting of gays, which is not true. In fact the Cherokee, banned gay marriage on the rez.

With the term homos, I don't know or care what is politically correct. I have heard it called all kinds of names, they all sound bad to me, but there are many worse. Should I elaborate

YOU are the one who claim there are NO gays in native americans (actually you've waffled a lot on that..."a few".."possible"..blah blah blah"). I'm not here to try and find something to support your vague, worthless biased opinions, its up to YOU to prove it..or else we'll just laugh at you. Well, we're already laughing at you. :)

as far as "homos", i'm sure there are worse, but mature, intelligent people generally use "gays" or "homosexuals". Hateful bigots and 12 year olds use "homos". :)

What!!! I guess you have the selective reading problem or may not have seen my previous posts. I have not waffled one bit. I am stating that none of the most powerful such as the Comanche, Cherokee, nor Iroquois had gays. Not to mention the fact that it was rare period, among the majority of all tribes. Not saying it did not exist in some, but still it was not rampant nor widely accepted, just as cannibalism was not practiced by the majority.

Uh, homos is short for homosexual correct?

Why don't you do your own research. The information is out there.

Why should HE prove YOUR case for YOU?

The gays are trying to play on the few that accepted them, and try to blanket all indians as being accepting of gays, which is not true.

Shame. You would think that a group of people who have faced such horrific discrimination and hate, would have some empathy.

That's if that's even true. You haven't made YOUR case yet, so who knows.

of course you are waffling...you've said "a few", "a small portion"..but then it also was "120" which is a pretty good percentage of the total...and you agree there are "some"..but "not common". lol. all of which are vague and subject to interpretation.

second, by the way, you havent proven anything...you just keep repeating your worthless opinion over and over and over.

and third, no, "homos" is NOT "short" for homosexual in any non-bigoted way, in that "homo" is a derogatory term, not a well-recognized and neutral abbreviation.

fourth, what is your obsession with american indians? What is your whole series of posts proving,other than your bigotry?

120 possible, out of 500 tribes. I say possible, because, as we all know, there was alot of stuff made up to destroy native America. Including calling them all sodomites. Funny, I always read of the old chiefs talking about laying with their women not their men.

I am just including American Indians, because they are important, and had belief in a single God. Well, many did, like I mentioned some believed in some dumb things like canniblaism etc.

Do your research with credible evidence on your own. I am not going to do it for you. Besides, anyone that does not know man and woman are supposed to be together, I really don't know what I can say is more obvious. There are many studies, but most of what is out there is BS, made up by progay authors that try to blanket all indians as being gay and accepting of it, which is far off mark. Like I said, the Comanche, Cherokee, and Irouqouis did not have gays. If you look up gay marriage on the Cherokee Reservation you will find that it was banned. Go further and look into Cherokee history and you will find no gay Cherokee, nor any mention of them.

Do your research with credible evidence on your own. I am not going to do it for you.

The point is. You should have ALREADY done it for YOURSELF, to be able to post that with any authority or as fact. In which case, you could present it to us, right now, so we could know you ARE speaking with authority about facts, and hence believe you.

you just don't get it, do you? i'm not about to do YOUR research for YOU and make YOUR case. You just keep posting the same thing over and over and over with no credible proof. lol.

btw..if there were no gays in some group of people, why would they feel the need to ban gay marriage? :)

and you'll find no mention of gays (even assuming that is true) in many cultures with relatively few records and a bias against gays..for obvious reasons.

besides, anyone that says that "man and women are "supposed" to be together", as if that means something in our legal system, I really don't know what I can say is more obvious. legally, "supposed to be together" is 100% irrelevant. Homosexuality has been approved by the supreme court, you should pay attention. :)

Using common sense, men are "supposed" to be with women if they are sexually attracted to them, and "supposed" to be with men if they are sexually attracted to them. Anything else is kinda stupid ("yes, I know you are attracted to one gender, but you are "supposed" to date someone you have no interest in"..duh). Of course, this means that roughly 95% of people are "supposed" to be with those of the opposite gender..but not 100%.

I have done it, I do not have the time to quote citings. Holy cow, this is just a forum not a college paper. Read books, learn, lots of info. Just read the correct info. and not some progay advocate that trys to bend everything to their view.

Here is just a little info. for you lazy people. Not sure why I need to defend the obvious. Man and Woman and meant for each other. You are only fooling yourselves.

"Other healthy populations in which homosexuality was never known were the
Comanche Indians, and the Hunzas. It is significant that, as reported by Dr
McCarrison, in nine years he worked in Hunza he observed not one case of cancer
or heart disease either".

I have done it, I do not have the time to quote citings. Holy cow, this is just a forum. Read books, learn, lots of info.

Yeah, still don't believe you.

Here is just a little info. for you lazy people. Not sure why I need to defend the obvious

You're the one who can't be put upon to copy/paste a link and you want to call us lazy for not doing YOUR research and making YOUR case for YOU?

By the way good night. I am going to bed with my wife and child. Don't overlook the joy of having and raising a child that is yours. Not some surrogate test tube lab experiment, but a real child made like it was meant to be. Good luck with your choices, there is always a right way and a wrong way.

"man and woman were meant for each other" may be true in a general sense, but is irrelevant when applied to individuals.

I mean..seriously..if you are attracted to someone of the same sex, are you suggesting they should marry someone they have no interest in? that just plain..stupid.

Don't overlook the joy of having and raising a child that is yours. Not some surrogate test tube lab experiment, but a real child made like it was meant to be.

I'll be sure to pass that on to all the infertile, straight couples out there. I'm sure they'll be much comforted from it.

Who gives a @!$%#? At least the lawyers will have more clients - why should only straight couples have to divorce? Every GLTG I know is so full of stupid drama no marriage would last anyway.

If there were no gays on Cherokee reservations, why did the Cherokee feel the need to ban gay marriage? Were they worried that white people would arrive in a mad rush to get all the gay marriages for themselves?

no marriage would last anyway.

As opposed to the huge success rates of heterosexual marriages. You're right though, straight people shouldn't be the only ones who have the right to divorce.

Sarah, this is all I have time for, the Cherokee banned gay marriage. http://64.38.12.138/News/archive/002244.asp

It is obvious what is right, not sure what is so hard to figure out. Good Night. By the way, yes having a child the normal way is the best way. Raising a child with a mother and father is the best way for a child. It is what is meant to be, that is it.

Yeah, I don't think it was the "Cherokee banned gay marriage" part that we were questioning. But thanks, I guess???

And you're right it IS obvious what is right. Equality.

I can show you how injustice towards some, harms the good of all in society. You CAN'T show me how what two people do in the privacy of their home harms a damn soul.

well, its obvious what YOU think is right, which means didlysquat frankly. lol.

again, you think people who are attracted to one gender should marry the opposite? again, that's just plain stupid...but apparently you can't figure that out. sad.

Attraction, lol. Is that your motive for being gay? Pretty shallow huh? How do you know your attractions are right, can you not control yourself or your mind? How do you not know your wires are not crossed? Are you a product of a bad society? Seriously, major religions can agree it is not right, common sense, science etc. Not sure why you should pursue your false signals. Everyone has a CHOICE in life. Just because some choose to make the wrong choice does not mean it is right for the rest of us that have. Nor should it be promoted as the norm.

Science does NOT agree with you Jason...

The American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychological Association

The American Association of Social Workers

The American Academy of Pediatrics

ALL do not see homosexuality as any sort of disease or abnormality.

actually, the definition of homosexuality is attraction to someone of the same gender. duh. its not a "motive' for being gay, it IS being gay. lol. here ya go, some free education: " 1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex"

Your attractions are your attractions. "right" is a meaningless and stupid concept in that context. Prove that they are "false signals" (lol of course you can't).

in this case, you do NOT have a "choice" as to which gender you are attracted to.

clue for the clueless: the issue isn't whether it should be "promoted as the norm", the question here is LEGAL rights for all american citizens. duh.

Jason, attraction goes far beyond consciousness. any psychologist who says you can directly control who you are attracted to is a charlatan. Attraction is not a choice, but forcing yourself to act against it is, and it ends up being seriously unbalancing and destructive to keep up the charade. And no, common sense and science find YOUR viewpoint to be incorrect. Homosexuality is nature's way of stopping overpopulation. It is just as necessary as heterosexuality.

The amusing thing is that jason is with a woman because he is attracted to women...pretty shallow, huh? why can't HE control that? How do you know YOUR wires aren't crossed? lol.

Because I have nothing better to do at 12:30 AM I decided to track down the research cited by jasoncameron in post 14.21 above. It came from a book called "Health & Survival in the 21st Century" by Ross Horne, an Australian airline pilot & health author. If you want to join me in wasting 20 minutes it's kind of a funny read. One of his conclusions is that there is no link between HIV & AIDS. Though I will give him a shred of credit for the following quote (albeit taken a bit out of context):

"To be biased against gays is comparably indecent--and absurd. Public and private strictures against homosexuals should be protested in the strongest terms. No burden of deportment, capability or reliability should be placed on homosexuals greater than that imposed on any other person."

I wish I could get to bed, but you people that have obviously made the wrong choices will argue with a wall. Okay, Sarah the American Psychology association and the overturn of homosexuality being considered a mental disorder, is a well known political move not based on scientific proof. Even proponents of homosexuality have seceded this. In fact, you will also learn that there is no genetic evidence or dna being embedded in the human genome as noted by the APA and the Human Genome project. The APA with vaguely tell you homosexuality MAY BE Nature vs. Nurture. Lol.

well, there you have it, I'm sold! after all, if an australian airplane pilot isn't an expert on comanche sexual behaviors, who is? lol.

jason: how does it feel to have failed with every post? lol. You don't even understand that attraction IS the basis for being gay (or straight). You may as well hang a sign around your neck saying "I know nothing, but I keep posting". :)

when did you CHOOSE to be attracted to women..did you sit down on your 13th birthday and go over the pros and cons of being gay versus straight? lol. of course not..you just were attracted..without making a choice. lol

you're funny. :)

PS - why do you assume that "you people" are gay (since you claim we've "made the wrong choice")? Maybe it turns out we are straight patriotic americans who support equal rights..and actually understand homosexuality (unlike you)? lol.

Patrick93

We are all in control of our own minds, and all know deep down inside that there is a right way and a wrong way in life. I am so discouraged to know that there are so many that are confused and lost. You are missing great things in life. Anyway, stopping overpopulation is understanding there are too many people and only having one or two kids. Not going against the grain. I am sorry, there are so many that are going the wrong road. Man and Woman are meant to be. That is the way, and anything else is just wrong.

so jason, when did you "control" your own mind and consciously decide to be attracted to a woman? lol, of course the answer is that you didn't. can you "control" your own mind and be attracted to a man? of course not.

I love how you just keep posting the same worthless opinions over and over and over.

"

It’s not exactly known what causes a person to be straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual, but research shows that it's based on biological factors that are in place before birth. We do know that sexual orientation is usually established before puberty. And although sexual orientation probably begins to develop before birth, it may seem to change over the course of a lifetime for some people.

One thing is clear — sexual orientation is not something that people can decide for themselves, or for others."

and i'm going to "control" myself and go to bed now, because its obvious you've made up your mind, based on "facts" that aren't facts. lol.

you go on and work on "controlling" your mind, i'm going to go have sex with my wife and lose control. :)

Really veromtguy? You don't get it do you? Everything in life is a choice. How many of us have had thoughts both good and bad? How many of us have had to make tough choices? It is sometimes hard to pick what is right and wrong, but most know what is meant to be, and can make the right choice. Sorry for those who do not. Yes, you can pick who you want to be with, it is a choice. Are you some robot? Anyhow, done with this post have to go to bed with my wonderful wife and child. Hope you make the right choices, life will be much better. There is always the right girl for a guy and the right guy for a girl. You just gotta find them. Good Night.

jasoncameron: I cannot think of anything less relevant to the issue of gay marriage in 21 century America than whether or not there were homosexuals in Native American tribes.

Jason I dont know if you will get to read this but i think your wrong in so many ways. Contrary to popular beleif there is NOT someone for everyone that is BS. If it were true the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. AND there is a growing number of people who are chosing to stay single. I mean they are chosing not to couple. Many people find this more unusual and unaccepting than homosexuality. If you cannot make a relationship work wether it is straight or gay than why put yourself and the other person involved through the agony. This is not only extremly painful it is WRONG. Let the person go and find someone that they can make a relationship work for the both of them. What is even more wrong is for a gay person to form a relationship with a straight person. This is just as bad as leading someone on in a relationship because it is a LIE. Relationships are based on honesty and commitment to the other persons happiness as well as your own. It is right to do what makes you happy as well as the person that you are involved with. Some people cannot be happy in a relationship no matter how bad they want one. It just is not ment to be. We are diverse and there are different strokes for different folks. Acceptence is the key.

" ... i'm not about to do YOUR research for YOU and make YOUR case. ... "

And no one is asking you to. But you are not showing that you have anything to back up your statements. And all you are being asked to do is just that, show your research. Show what you have that backs up you statements. Prove your case.

Otherwise it is just so much crap. And you look like an ignorant, hateful, fearful bigot. Unless of course, THAT is what you are and want people to believe.

Backup your statements, show your proof, or go the @!$%# away.

I am a hetrosexual. I am not Homosexual. I am not Bi- sexual. If you want to stick it in your buddys butt, good for you. Want to stick it your wife and then your buddy, good for you. Want to stick it in your neighbors cat....well, good for you.

Want me to accept that its just dandy? Go somewhere else. I dont accept it. Keep it to yourself. If you are proud of it, great.

I think you are wrong. If I am wrong in your eyes well then you are all Hetro-phobics. How dare I say your wrong. I keep it to myself, if you want to advertise get a bill board with a picture of yourself choking on your buddys caulk and see how "accepting" we all are. Grow up, shut up, and go away......we dont care about your cause.

Jason,

Yes, and 9/11 was an inside job, right?

Jim,

Why the obsession with butt sex? If you aren't seeing or doing it before these laws passed, well I'm willing to bet you won't be doing it after they pass.

Unless you want to???

Here is Jason's research, from Wikipedia:

According to certain reports there had never been an alternative gender among the Comanche.^[23] This is true of some Apache bands as well, except for the Lipan, Chiricahua, Mescalero, and southern Dilzhe'e.^[24][25] One tribe in particular, the Eyak, has a single report from 1938 that they did not have an alternative gender and they held such individuals in low esteem, although whether this sentiment is the result of acculturation or not is unknown.^[26][27]

It has been claimed that the Iroquois did not either,^[23] although there is a single report from Bacqueville de la Potherie in his book published in 1722, Histoire de l'Amérique septentrionale, that indicates that an alternative gender existed among them (vol. 3, p. 41).^[28] Many, if not all, tribes have been influenced by European homophobia/transphobia.^{[29][30][31][32][33][34]}

It has been claimed that the Aztecs and Incas had laws against such individuals,^[35][36][37] though there are some authors who feel that this was exaggerated or the result of acculturation, because all of the documents indicating this are post-conquest and any that existed before had been destroyed by the Spanish.^[33][38] The belief that these laws existed, at least for the Aztecs, comes from the Florentine Codex. According to Dr Nancy Fitch, Professor of History at California State University, Fullerton,

Notice how he leaves a few relevant points out....

apparently not. Like chickens with their heads cut off, the anti-gay bigots don't realize they have already lost, and continue their struggle to deny others equal rights. Its sad and pathetic, but true.

Mere wishful thinking on your part, vermontguy. The culture war is just beginning and your side will (repeat WILL) lose. In the meantime, here's a nugget of truth to help you overcome your ideological hallucinations. Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

lol, look at all the polls, we are ALREADY over 50% in americans supporting gay marriage, and that number is climbing rapidly.

wishfull thinking? lol, you wish. The haters are doomed.

the rest of your post is irrelevant to secular law regarding equal rights of american citizens under the constitution. The whole "marriage is for procreation" argument is worthless in this context, since you can't deny the right of marriage to those who can't, or don't want to, procreate.

" ... it is an undeniable fact ... "

Huh. Ok.

I deny it. I deny it as fact. I deny it as fiction. I deny it totally and completely.

So now that it HAS been denied. You got anything else? Or just more of the same old @!$%#?

Marriage was pretty much always arranged in ancient times. Which brings to question, why do (the anti-gay members) religons today act like they own marriage when such unions have existed long before any of their faiths, many of which were done to crate alliances between people, not a sacred bond.

Uh, because it was set up between a husband and wife

In the ancient Near East marriages were always
arranged. In ancient Israel the marriage covenant (b'rith) was part of the civil
law, and there were legal papers that were drawn up which defined the rights of
the husband and wife.

Coming to your state in the past: No longer being able to marginalize, segregate and discriminate against blacks and other non white races legally anymore and best of all, no longer being able to deny a interracial heterosexual couple a marriage license based on "If God intended races to marry he wouldn't have put them on separate continents!"

earth to oldkingblog: your argument is legally worthless here in america. Perhaps you can start a new country with different laws, but under the constitution, you're history. :)

Marriage was also to get rid of deadweight females since they weren't allowed to work and create male heirs to help the family.

The real devolution of society is coming from the single mothers and heterosexuals who live in sin (never getting married) or getting divorced on a whim. You know, the people you let into and stay in your church.

Also many ancient societies like the Pagans and Egyptians used and regarding sex in ways that was spiritual and ritual, not just for procreation.

Oldking: The loving nuclear family you idolize developed fairly recently. For most of human history, some other kind of arrangement between men and women was the norm. Polygamy, one man with a wife and concubines, arranged marriages to cement alliances, family clusters where procreation and child rearing was a communal affair. Even today your pure standard is violated on a regular basis, as when a man has a wife for what could be one of many reasons, procreation among them, but has other sexual partners. I am all for stable marriages if children are involved. But your Victorian idealism and narrow morality is no longer the only way to go.

Dont you wish that this kind of marriage actually exsist. Read these post. Heterosexuals have made a mockery of marraige for centuries through spouse abuse, forced arranged marriages divorce and adultry. Does love exsist? Of course it does. If it didnt there would not be so many poems, songs, and stories written about it, However not everybody gets to do this. Yeah everybody gets to have a partner of some kind. but not everybody gets to be in love and live happily ever after. If you do then i am really happy for you. But bear in mind that not everybody is you. What makes you happy may not make the rest of us happy. Ive been married twice. I hated both times. Did I love my husband yes i did but marriage destroyed that beause neither of us was happy being married. i made the decision not to do this again because it simply does not work for me. But it works for others. Good for them if it works by all means do it. But it does not work for everybody

"Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities"

And yet, a large percentage of heterosexual couples abandoned this safegaurd, this sacred institution by filing for divorce? I don't see anyone protesting against divorced couples? It seems no one likes to point the finger when it hits too close to home. Everyone really needs to focus on themselves & stay out of other people's personal lives.

How is it not marriage? If marriage is a religious institution then why do we give out marriage licenses with "MARRIAGE" on it to couples who have a ceremony without any religious aspect and couples who have no ceremony at all?

the government isn't forcing anyone to sin, they are just giving them free will..you know, like god gave us. lol. and btw, gay marriage isn't the sin if you believe the bible that way, its having gay sex, which gov't has no control over.

so your whole premise about gov't is just plain wrong.

And pointless to anyone who DOESN'T FOLLOW YOUR BOOK OF RELIGIOUS RULES.

The Government will slap GOD down as it is, take its sheeple with it, to the briniks of eternal Hell.....for a vote. And the sheeple will follow and forfeit their eternal souls.

I'm comfortable with that.

It's ironic you refer to people who support human rights for all as sheeple. Since many Christians follow a 2000 year old book without question, even with it's contradictions & inconsistancies. Why do you think the church refers to it's congregants as their flock?

why? afraid you'll "turn gay" now? lol. How does it feel to be a hateful, unamerican bigot? :)

To respect your opinion Veteran, I'll avoid living in states that have banned gay marriage. ;)

why should people stop "crying" for equal rights? Should blacks have been happy in the back of the bus?

It must be nice to be happy with all the rights for yourself and whining about people who want equal rights.

"Oh my love of my life, will you join me in a civil union?"

^ Is that how gay couples are supposed to propose.

So what I am understanding is that we can give civil unions to gay couples, which is the exact same rights as a marriage license, but not called marriage.

So if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, we call it a goose because it is not the same as a actual duck.

Separate, but equal.

Where have I heard that before?

Yes, how dare they whine about wanting access to the civil rights afforded to other couples. Such nerve!

cat23ross would have made an excellent plantation master!

They have the same civil rights as I do. They have the right to work, live their lifes and what every other American can do. This is in no way even close to blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. If they want to date someone from the same sex then that's their right.

Also Inadaze no they are not suppose to say anything like that. I don't believe there should be any civil union for anyone. Marriage is for people that want to start a family and respect the valuse of that. I have not got one problem with gays wanting to be together and have a life together but don't disintegrate the values of marriage because they're selfish.

They don't have the same rights though. They can't marry the person they love, despite the fact that that person is a consenting adult who would otherwise be allowed to enter into a marriage contract. To say, they have the same right I do, to marry someone of the other gender is just as flawed as the arguments for restricting marriage to people of the same race because "they have the same rights I do, to marry someone of the same race". THAT is the comparison being made. In both cases, they are being prevented from marrying the person they love solely because it is "damaging to the values of marriage" to let them marry that person, despite both being able to give full consent. No one here is claiming that not having gay marriage is the same as all the Jim Crow laws, though it is interesting how much overlap there is for the justification of said laws and the justification for denying gays equal rights

cat23ross, you're so far out of touch with this issue ... it's sad really. So let's get you up to speed.

Picture this: Your husband/wife is in a car accident and is critically injured. You rush to the hospital but are prevented from seeing spouce because spouce's parents got there first, don't approve of your marrige, and have barred you from seeing spouce. Then, you go home to regroup, but discover that spouces parents have arrived before you, changed the locks, and have the Sherrif's Dept there telling you to leave the premises immediately or be arrested.

In the space of 24 hours, you are now a widow, your home and all it's contents including beloved pets and precious family heirlooms have been seized by people who hate you and blame you for your spouces death, and the law is completely on their side. You have no legal recourse other than perhaps a civil suit that you have little hope of winning unless you have receipts for everything in the house.

Then, said parents have your spouce cremated (completely against your and spouce's wishes) and refuse to disclose any further info about spouce, his/her ashes, or even what happened to the beloved pets, and then sell the house out from under you and donate the money to an organization that has publically called for "people like you" to be rounded up and shot.

Then, the govt tells you you're not entitled to any survivor benefits, and everything you've worked jointly to build over the years is being seized and auctioned by the city and spouce's parents because you didn't have a will and even though you've been in a loving, monogamous relationship for 20 years, legally you are nothing to each other - perhaps a tennant at best, and are not entitled to anything. Your whole life together has been trashed, you're now homeless, penniless, and alone.

But none of this happens if you're married. The hateful parents can't screw you, you'll get the insurance and govt benefits you deserve, and you'll remain in your home with your beloved pets.

And this is not some made up, never-gonna-happen story. It has happened to thousands of gay couples, and in fact, has happened to a dear friend of mine a few years back. That friend committed suicide a couple of years later.

And that is what you're defending.