E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court will take its first serious look at same-sex marriages. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
WASHINGTON -- The marriage cases the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear will test an axiom about the court, one that says it prefers to move in small increments rather than big leaps.
By next June, the justices could rule narrowly on the constitutionality of allowing same-sex couples to get married. Or they could announce a sweeping ruling that would apply nationwide and remain the law of the land for years to come.
"We have no idea if they will ultimately reach the broader issues about gay people and the fundamental right to marry," says Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a veteran of the legal battles over gay rights.
It's possible the court will find a way to avoid the central issue both cases raise: Does the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection allow the state and federal governments to make legal distinctions between same-sex couples and those of the opposite sex?
The court agreed Friday to consider challenges to a law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal and to California's Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that put a stop to marriage in that state for gay couples.
Both cases invite the potential for far-reaching decisions, says Tom Goldstein, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who argues before the court and publishes the SCOTUSblog website.
"This is a monumental action by the Supreme Court, because we know they're going to say something about gay marriage for the first time ever. They may not decide there's a constitutional right to it, but this will be the building block, in one direction or the other, for recognizing or rejecting that right," Goldstein says.
The greatest potential for a ruling with nationwide implications comes in the California case. Proposition 8, approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008, amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. It went into effect after 18,000 couples had been legally married there.
A federal judge in San Francisco declared the ban unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling. But it based its decision on narrower grounds that apply only to California.
Once a state grants a fundamental right like marriage, the appeals court said, it cannot later take it away.
"The people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class,” wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
If the Supreme Court affirms that decision, the ruling would affect only California, permitting marriage for same-sex couples to resume. No other state has granted and then withdrawn the marriage right for gay couples.
But the justices could go further and decide whether any state can refuse to permit same-sex couples to get married.
"The question whether the states may discriminate against gay men and lesbians in the provision of marriage licenses is the defining civil rights issue of our time," argues Ted Olson, the Washington, D.C., lawyer representing two gay couples who challenged the California measure.
The Supreme Court could also reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8 as a legitimate exercise of the people's right to amend their state constitution, an outcome urged by the ballot measure's backers.
The appeals court decision, they argue, "threatens to short-circuit further democratic deliberations regarding official recognition of same-sex relationships."
The Supreme Court also gave itself a way out of reaching the merits of the California case. It directed lawyers for both sides to address an unusual aspect of the controversy.
After voters approved the initiative, which became part of the state constitution, California officials declined to defend it and the legal battle was picked up by Prop 8's backers. The Supreme Court wants to know if they had the legal authority to stand in for the state and carry on that battle.
The second case the Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear is a challenge to a federal law passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. The Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal under state law.
The court took up a lawsuit filed by a New York woman, Edie Windsor, who lived for more than 40 years with her partner, Thea Spyer, marrying her in Canada in 2007.
But when Spyer died two years later, leaving Windsor the estate, the IRS sent a tax bill for $363,000, because the federal government did not recognize their marriage. The surviving spouse of a traditional marriage is generally not required to pay federal estate taxes.
“It was the injustice, I think, ultimately,” Windsor says. “I couldn't believe that they were making a stranger of this person I lived with and loved for 43-something years."
A decision striking down DOMA would not, by itself, require states to allow same-sex marriages. But the federal government would be required to recognize those marriages in the states where they are legal.
In that case, too, the court provided itself an off-ramp. After first defending the law, the Obama administration concluded last year that DOMA was unconstitutional. House Republicans picked up the legal defense. The Supreme Court asked lawyers for both sides to address whether the House Republicans have the legal right to carry on the appeal.
Both cases will be argued in March, and a decision probably will not come before late in June.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
- Obama seeking $60.4 billion for post-Sandy recovery
- Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage
- Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes
- 'My puppy saved my life': SUV rams into man's jewelry store, which he had just left
- Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear
- Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice'
Leave a Comment:
I fully support the right of gays to be as miserable as the rest of us.
I'm guessing they will rule narrowly and determine that states can allow gay marriage, and likely that the fed will have to honor the states decision.
(just a guess)
so be gay, just keep children out of it! oh sorry, gays can`t have children on their own, my bad. when 2 men and 2 women can have children of their own im all in! till then ...........
The ability or desire to procreate is not nor never has been a requirement under American law to obtain a marriage license in any state.
Mudder,
Either can infertile people. Your point? And by the way, gay people are capable of both impregnating women and being impregnated.
Are you really that naive???
Moreover I use the word "naive" because I was recently given a week-long timeout by Tyler for using the appropriate term in a different vine.
re: my prediction in 1.2.
such a ruling would be a victory for those that endorse "states rights", but a defeat for the religious conservatives.
it is also possible that the SCOTUS will rule that gay marriage is indeed constitutional and would throw out all laws disallowing it. (which would be fine with me). hopefully, they will not follow the American Taliban and ban it outright.
short of a amendment to the Constitution; the only way they can rule is ; a State has the right to determine Marriage (not a civil union under contract). Most States have laws on who can be married, age, blood relationship and sex of the party's; Marriage is defined as a union between person of the opposite sex, has been for around 4 thousand years; if two people want to live together as a family unit, that is their right; however it is not a Marriage.
Saxon,
Since DOMA is the federal anti-marriage equality law which is the basis for most of these amendments they can also rule that DOMA itself is unconstitutional.
Marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times over the course of human history. It's a contract and as such, those who have the right to enter into it should be decided the same way ALL contracts are decided. Legal capacity for informed consent.
Unless the state has a compelling reason to ban entering into a contract on the basis of gender, then this is an equal protection violation.
They can marry any thing what they want. I just don't want to pay for their Public sector union benefits? It's all about fleecing the taxpayer.
And they don't want to pay for straight couples, I'm sure. Your point?
I heard a delusional comment from "preserve marriage washington"spokesperson that claimed her "freedom of religion" was being infringed upon because WA state was allowing gay marriage.
WTF? it appears that the lunatic religious right thinks that they have the right to impose their religion upon others through force of law, and instead of simply living according to their beliefs, everyone else must live according to their narrow views.
It's important that the SCOTUS declare DOMA unconsitutional. I recently enrolled and my partner in health benefits through my employer. Since the federal government does not recognize our relationship (and we are legally married in CA), the benefit deductions for my partner are paid after tax. Also, I have to pay taxes on what my employer pays toward my partner's benefits (imputed income). Opposite sex married couples do not pay imputed income and the deductions are both pre-tax. In other words, I pay about $1,200 a year more than my co-workers who are married and cover their spouse. We've been together 25 years, and it's not fair.
saxon,
I don't what which law school you attended, but based upon your "analysis," you slept through Con Law. Constitutional analysis is based upon rule of law and precedent, as opposed to ideologically-driven wishful thinking. Of course, you apparently slept through contracts and community property also, or you would have a better understanding of the origins of marriage as a vehicle for property conveyance and it's contractual nature. Additionally, you lost points due to your failure to at least acknowledge the potential implications of equity, preemption, and supremacy.
What I find sublimely ironic is that had certain groups not pushed so hard, via Prop. 8 and DOMA, this matter would not likely have been before the Court at any time in the near future. Those actions are what ultimately provided the necessary federal question and standing that now allow the Court to weigh in.
Too bad God probably doesn't exist.
TM
"probably" You don't sound very sure. Any sin is defying God.
Too bad nobody told that to Justice Scalia.
The federal government included gays in statistics and did campaign directly to them and contributed some of the lost vote to Obama position vs. Romney's position. Do you all really think that they are going to retract those stances and outlaw this? I don't think so. And what exactly would be the outcome if they did that...probably a total loss of gay voters....Obama needs those for next election.....lol.
Nation wide....sorry but you up in the fed gov....talk about power hungry mommies...your about to chase yourselves right out of our government. We the people own you and we the people, will see to it you abide by our rules not the other way around. I live in a state, not the federal government, however i do respect you but you are going too far up peoples arses...and your wearing us awfully thin.
"Marriage is defined as a union between person of the opposite sex, has been for around 4 thousand years;"
Marriage was NEVER defined like this until we did it a few years ago. It shows just how clueless you are.. Although I am not gay, being gay can be found in ALL walks of life on this planet between EVERY species of animal. To be against it is to be selfish and stupid, you do NOT have to participate, its NOT your life, its theirs.
roadlesstravelled, the state you live in has to follow what the Federal government says. We are the UNITED States of America. We have a central government. Our government is also set up so that the minority is not subjected to the tyranny of the majority.
P.S. Obama can not be elected again. That's in that pesky Constitution people like you like to ignore.
Sarah and ro mar; yes the court may well rule that DOMA, is a overreach by the Government, that is what they may do; the other part of the decision would have to be on ,what is a valid Marriage in each of the 50 States and Territory's of the United States, I will stick by original statement that, under the Constitution a State has the power and right to determine what is a valid MARRIAGE;
as to insurance benefits being unequal, that can simply be done by regulatory order from the IRS, as to detectability on income tax returns.
ROMAR: as to contract ,community property law, each state already has Laws regulating the field(age of contract,against public policy, ability to contract, void contract as property law, inheritance ,etc.
as to Constitutional law; ALL POWERS NOT GRANTED TO THE Federal GOVERNMENT BELONG TO THE States, SO LONG AS THOSE LAWS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE Constitution(Joseph story, Dredi Scott DECISION), IT TOOK A CIVIL WAR AND 3 amendments TO THE Constitution TO OVERRULE THAT DECISION.
saxon.
Everything you just asserted about states rights to determine marriage validity is undone by the 14th Amendment's call for equality under the law. That's how "separate but equal" failed.
boring. it was a joke...but people like you are so up tight you would not know that. So don't go file a report that I said Obama gets another round, it was a JOKE. RELAX and the people like you, comment, as if you know something...you don't know crap, I make myself up on newsvine as I see fit...nothing is me, except my crappy mistyping.
and enjoy brown nosing the fed, Ill smoke my medical pot thank you very much. ha
I'm sorry I didn't realize you were joking. There are plenty of people that make those same arguments that aren't.
Sarah...Two men and two women cannot impregnate each other like a man and women can...That is the point...
CULHEATH: the 14th amendment dealt solely with prior condition of servitude and public debt(greenbacks were being used instead of gold and silver); it did not give everyone equality; Women did not have the power to vote, it took the 17Th amendment to grant women the power to vote, the equality of the laws which the 14th refers to , had to do with federal laws and the federal constitution;
(once women got the right to vote, first thing was to outlaw booze, lesson learned, be careful who you give the power to vote,I am going to get nailed by Sarah and fiesty on this one, ouch)
Forget the word Gay and put in Negro, Jew, Women, Disabled, Indian, etc. It is about equal protection under the law. Gays are not second-class citizens with different rights, privileges, or protections. The Bible thumpers do not rule by decree in America, and their views have no more merit than a Jew, Muslim, or someone with no religious affiliation. The Holy Rollers have got to keep the noses out of other people's underwear, and grow the hell up.
First, it is a lie that the SCOTUS prefers to be whimpy, er, I mean incremental, EXCEPT for when it choosees to ignore the 2ns Amendment. Or do you call Roe-V-Wade incremental.
But they damned well better NOT get incremental over gay marriage- they need to rule that the states AND the federal government have NO BUSINESS denying ANYONE the right to marry whomever they desire. The SOLE place of government in marriage (If there is any place fot government at all) is to protect the rights of those IN the marriage in the sad event the marriage has to be dissolved.
As Jensen said, they are human beings, just like Jews and Negoes, women and disabled.
DGAL,
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. That's the point.
@Sarah,
What constitutes a marriage has only been redefined once in all of human history; under Nero of Rome for a period of about six years directly leading to the fall of Rome - Nero granted himself permission to marry same gender companions; and his horse.
The ability to procreate is a fundamental requirement of marriage. Appellate courts have already addressed your infertility meme and found it to be "a theoretical abnormality that has no effect on the traditional intent of marriage; procreation."
Randy, Randy, Randy...
Your source? Really, only once? So marriage hasn't been defined as a man and numerous wives? It's never been defined as a wife with numerous husbands? It's never been defined as an agreement between a man and female's male guardian? It's never been defined as a man and woman of the same race only?
http://www.eqil.org/marriage.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
http://canadianatheist.com/2012/03/24/changing-the-definition-of-marriage-again/
Really, it's a requirement? What are the penalties for childless couples? Where's the statute saying you can only get married if you agree to have kids? Go look on your marriage license. Where does it say procreation on it?
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!
the wives were not married to each other; they were each married to a single man; they each had their personal contract with one person of the opposite sex. When the man chose to divorce said wife he did not divorce himself of all his wives; just the broken one.
As already noted; your infertility meme has already been addressed by the courts as "nothing more than a theoretical abnormality that has no effect on the traditional intent of marriage; procreation." There is no penalty for not having children; nor is their a requirement to have children. The construct exists to acknowledge this bonds immutable and innate link to the laws of nature and natures God.
Sarah, only replying to your answer to Mudder...2 men and 2 women cannot impregnate each other like a man and a women can...
Even if a state has the right to permit heterosexuals the right to marry while denying the same right to gays (a debatable point), you still have to contend with the issue of marriages in another state. States recognize marriages performed in another state, even if they were not performed in accordance with their own laws (for instance, a state with a waiting period will recognize marriages performed in a state without a waiting period). It would be discriminatory for a state to pick-and-choose which marriages it will recognize from another state. The only way that they can get away with discrimination against same-sex marriages is that hateful DOMA.
And it was a completely different definition of marriage than we have now. Yet you said, marriage had only been redefined once???
By the way, where's that source?
Yet you just said it WAS a requirement. You're contradicting your own posts. If this had any authority behind it, we would have to ban all people who don't want or can't have kids from marriage, and anyone who doesn't believe in religion or God from getting married.
And if marriage had anything to do with God, why can I go get married tomorrow without invoking any religion or God? Why can atheists marry?
And, you're embarrassing yourself. Again.
Well put Denver.Let them all get married whatever.All the laws will apply to them as well,Including child support,Alimony etc etc.I just hope that when they get all their rights that they quit crying and whining,then they can dry up and move on.I will say this.Being gay or lespian does not make a person a race minority.Gays and lespians will still get the same treatment from me as any straight person would.If you don't do your job it's time for you to go.No special treatment whatsoever.NONE.If you want to play the sexual,race he's picking on me card you will be out even faster.
Randall EK:Speaking of "procreation". Do you believe that Adam gave birth to Eve in the Garden of Eden? Do you believe in Talking Snakes? Put down your GD bible. And grow up. Gay Marriage is here to stay. And if you don't like it. Get your butt out of this country. And move to Iran.
Guess what Randall EK. Gay Marriage is the law in several states now. And God is also Pro Choice, because of his gift to humanity was "FREE WILL".
Wolfhound27: I don't remember gays ever asking for "special treatments" from the government. You said that.
Your personal expressed religious bigotry does you no credit considering the fact that the right of conscience and free exercise thereof is a authentic civil right; whereas the sexual depravity you pimp as the truth according to you so help you you does not even warrant an honorable mention.
The ABILITY to procreate is a pre-requisite to marriage; the infertility meme is nothing more than "a theoretical abnormality that has no effect on the traditional intent of marriage; procreation."
Funny, isn't it? The bigots don't even realize that they shot themselves in the foot, or that they've provided ample proof to the court that these laws are unconstitutionally based on anti-gay animus.
If they had done nothing at all and never passed DOMA or the mini-DOMAs, then Baker v Nelson would have remained a precedent for a long time and there would be no issues before the court today.
If that were true, then why do infertile people pass that class and get married? Or why don't we allow anyone past the age of puberty to get married? Why make them then wait until they have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT? It doesn't matter how many times you assert something. It doesn't make it true.
i am going by what i hear snake...i have had people come crying to me saying..he fired me because i was gay.And that simply was'nt the fact.Also i heard 1st hand, a gay couple went to the human rights commision because they were turned down for a home loan...i checked on it.it was because of bad credit not because they were gay but,they sure did raise heck because they thought it was descrimination.shall i keep going?There was an editorial in a local paper where a gay man accused the police of descrimination because he got a speeding ticket instead of a warning because he was gay..yeah right.I have had my fair share of tickets and i am not gay but, i did'nt cry to the media because i felt i was descriminated against.In the past i have employed a couple of thousand of employees and honestly i could'nt tell you if any of them were gay or not and i really don't care either.
You've nailed it, Skrekk. It is just like those religious groups that go ape over some obscure movie that no one was planning on seeing, until all the publicity makes it a "must-see." Oh, well, the American Taliban has never been accused of subtlety.
Double edged sword Sarah; you'll cut yourself!
My understanding is firmly rooted in five thousand years of historical fact; whereas yours is based on eight years of identity politics rooted in transitory popular culture.
Yes, please keep going so that we can all get a good laugh. I'm sure that there are gays that make unfounded claims of discrimination. But, so do blacks, muslims, jews and WASPS. Should we deny all those groups equal rights because of the actions of a few?
Randy,
I don't think you know what "fact" means.
How have those state bans on mixed-race marriage worked out for you confederate nuts?
Or do only some Americans get 14th Amendment rights?
BARRY...i never said a thing about denying equal rights.Not once did i say anything to deny anyone equal rights,SPIN SPIN SPIN. oh and by the way if you ever want to i would like to offr you the chance to meet a REAL Taliban fighter.You think you know what they are all about? then please come deal with them so i can go home.
All I say is, as long as removing the federal law of disallowing plural marriage, then I'm all for it. Think about it. Is it a federal crime for two people of the same sex to marry? No, it isn't. But it is a federal offense for three people to marry. Why is this so? Why do those on the left not also fight for this cause? Is it because generally those who practice polygamy are religious, so they don't care too much for it?
skreekk: the miscegenation laws came into effect after the civil war; the young white male population of the south was almost wiped out; until then you had many instances of mixed marriages in many parts of the south, New Orleans, Savannah, Charleston, at the time of the civil war , there were more (fmoc) free men of color, than slaves; slavery was a curse on our Nation, one we are still paying for; the miscegenation laws were never really enforced, by law , only by discrimination of those who were in that relationship.
WRONG, Randy. Unless you can tell us exactly which states require proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, that is. And you might also tell us the states that do not allow the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children to marry.
You mentioned that that ruling came from "appellate courts" -- which courts, and which cases?
As always, Randy, you can't name ANY sources to support your claims.
I don't think this is too hard of an issue to deal with. I hope I'm not the only person who has read Vaughn Walker's opinion at the District Court level. It's, well, pathetic. People talk about driving a legal point based upon ideology, well, check out Walker's opinion. He held two mutually exclusive positions at the same time in order to reject Proposition 8. But what struck me as most discordant with the law was his claim that the California constitution did, in fact, enshrine as a fundamental right the ability of homosexual couples to marry, and was included in the constitution from the very beginning.
Even if you support homosexual marriage (I don't but could if its advocates didn't make the claim that just because someone loves another they should be able to marry, which is a very bad way to make law, and instead showed how society benefits when homosexuals can marry) the idea that the framers of California's constitution, in the mid-1850s, intended for homosexuals to be able to marry under its provisions is just laughable. So Judge Walker just made it up. He wanted an outcome, rather than a decision, and I think allowed his own personal biases to help guide his jurisprudence.
Judge Reinhardt went to an even nuttier legal level, if that is possible, than Judge Walker. In affirming the lower court his claim, for the majority, is that once a right is granted it cannot be revoked. Sounds plausible, yes? Except that this "right" was given by the California Supreme Court, and was reversed by the people. If Judge Reinhardt is right that a court can determine new rights and that the people should have no say then he represents a strain of liberal jurisprudence that brings us within a whisker hair to judicial totalitarianism. This case, like hundreds of others before it, shows why the courts should defer to the political branch, and the people, when unconvering new rights it claims exist, but which no one ever thought about it, wrote about it, or spoke about it, until very recently.
But I think the California Supreme Court, like Judges Walker and Reinhardt, know something about people and used that knowledge to achieve their own political ends through the law. They know that over time people will usually be ground down until opposition becomes more like a resigned aquiescence. So ruling after ruling to defy the people, and the people begin to tire of the fight. The courts get their political way, and the proper way to expand rights--the constitutional way--takes it in the shorts. If you were a judge would you not, at some point, at least flirt with the idea that you get to remake society in your image?
The courts are just one more thing modern liberalism has infected.
It doesn't matter what century we're in, AID/HIV is on a shocking rise because of homosexuality and not because of anything else. According to the CDC, Men Sleeping With Men study shows AIDS/HIV is up 69% and according the link below 20% don't even know they have it and so spread it to other partners. Homosexuals will eventually kill themselves off because this disease has no cure and a condom will not stop the HIV virus. Homosexuality is a choice just like unsafe sex, smoking and boozing it up every weekend.
http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/men/sex/aids-by-the-numbers
WRONG. In fact, 85% of all new cases worldwide are among heterosexual men -- while the group with the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS is lesbian women.
Like all "good" bigots, you confuse behavior with orientation.
The only one to obtain the marriage license in most state is man and women...OOOOPS that must of hurt you gay people...
There is no such thing as "Gay people."
Sexual depravity does not turn you into a sub-species of man unto yourself; and bastardizing language so as to lend an appearance of authenticity to your depravity only makes you look desperate.
Standard "not my fault" tactics of your a-typical addict.
So is anti-gay discrimination and any other unjust discrimination against women and minorities.
Straight white Christian men shouldn't have special rights, they should have equal rights with all other Americans.
Ummmm.....they were rather strictly enforced. Sounds like you know nothing at all about our very recent history. Even getting married out of state could get a mixed-race couple a prison sentence, as was the case in Virginia v Loving.
I have nothing against gay marriage in fact i support it. That being said don't try to say that it's meant to be, or that homosexuality is meant to be, because it's not and the one thing that proves that is reproduction. For example if the planet only consisted of an all male species, or all female species the species would die out. Once again I do support gay marriage and I hope that they soon allow it for the sake of equality. Also like somebody said previously, they are trying to redefine a 4000 year old principle so this won't happen over night.
Troy, you need to brush up on your history. Gay marriage was allowed during the Roman Empire... which was less that 2K years ago.
That's an exception, and has nothing to do with the overall principle behind marriage that was established so long ago. What is the exact definition of Marriage. Actually I should stop. I sound like I'm arguing against it. Anyway I made my point, and like I said before I do hope things change
There was no "Gay" marriage in Rome; there were six years of same-gender marriages in Rome and then Rome fell - not a very good track record.
Prior to and up until 2000 there have been no other instance of acceptance of this abomination. So in the last five thousand years of recorded human history their have been, at most, 18 yrs of this crime against the laws of nature and natures God.
Randy, you would be wrong. Very wrong. You know nothing of social history, or any history of homosexuals.
The word "Homosexual" was coined in 1860 Germany by a single researcher in reference to a hypothesized subject who spends their entire life being exclusively attracted to like gender individuals/groups. This word quickly fell into disfavor, but resurfaced in the late 1970's when perverts began there quest to manufacture a sense of the legitimacy for the depravity.
So it would seem that I know a hell of a lot more about this depravity then you do.
You folks are really just sociopaths whose principal goal is to create willing victims who affirm the acceptability of the crimes perpetrated against them.
Make a constitutunal amendment already saying this crap is not gonna happen and let it go at that. Sarah why don't you find something to do with your life besides taking up every sick and twisted banner that comes along?
OH yeah right...when humans rarely lived past 40 and bred like rabbits in civilization and disease was RAMPANT....nice comparison.
Your timeline is a bit messed up. Constantine adopted Christianity in 313 AD, banned gay unions in 342 AD, and then Christianity was forcibly imposed on the empire and colonies from 390-395 AD. Rome collapsed not long after that.
Only two possible conclusions can be drawn - either banning gay marriage caused the collapse of Rome, or Christianity caused the collapse of Rome.
Randy, so just because the word "homosexual" didn't appear until the 19th century, that means that they didn't exist before then? Is that what you're saying? Wow.....
To everyone who trots out the fall of Rome, sex and religion had NOTHING to do with it. Spreading an army too thin over too large and area to control and a seige by the Visagoths brought about what people like to call the "fall" of Rome. The Roman Empire had been declining and shrinking for some time before that.
Puleeeeeeeeeez, Let this ruling be a broad one that forces us all to live with homosexuality. It will usher in the inevitable civil war so we can get this thing over with once and for all. Dont forget, Christ believed that if you dont have a gun you should sell something and buy one. And always buy 10X as much ammo as you think you will need.
I stopped reading this thread after a point, so forgive me if I repeat anything that's been said or dealt with already.
Homosexuality did not end Rome. Rome became huge and hard to manage, and so was split into two "states." One had more resources, while the other had more folks invading. The one side fell to those invasions. The other side continued to call itself Rome for generations, but we know it instead as the super-Christian Byzantine empire, which had a bad habit of losing technology and destroying its own artifacts. It was the beginning of the Dark Ages.
@ Just My 2 Coppers
Also are you suggesting that we use the Romans as role models?
Deviants
Yes, to the extent that they got a civil rights issue correct.
In contrast, Christofascists like RandyEK want to model our government after Iran.
Sarah-3043284
If that were true, then why do infertile people pass that class and get married? Or why don't we allow anyone past the age of puberty to get married? Why make them then wait until they have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT? It doesn't matter how many times you assert something. It doesn't make it true.
Actually there are regulations that are directly pointed at procreation and marriage. The fact that first cousins are not allowed to marry because of possible birth defects directly supports that child birth is a part of a marriage. although i have no problem with gays living together Or working with gays or any other daily activity. marriage is still meant to be between people of opposite sex not peopel who pretend to be .
As for others who claim gay activity is a natural act because animals display it are wrong. No where in nature are there animals that act out a gay relationship like humans. yes there are occational homosexual acts but they are quickly stopped and do not continue. Much like experimentation and then even those animals realize that is not what nature intended. humans however ( with a slef serving mind) go beyond thier knowledge that nature did not intend two people of the same sex to engage, think only of self serving pleasures and therefore attempt to justify thier actions by pointing to nature in a scewed manner.
this court is the most liberal we have ever had and i really have no doubt that the matter will be ruled in favor of gay marriage. It is my belief however that at somepoint in the future we will all regret that decision and pay dearly for it .There is more at stake here than just personal freedoms.
Many things led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
The constant Colosseum games bleeding them dry. Their enemies had managed to infiltrate and learn of their strategies. Taxes. The Senate at constant odds with their leader. They spread themselves too thin. Decadent behavior, arrogance and religion also played a role.
You are twisting history to suit your needs.
Obama's appointee Eileen Kagen better not Recuse Herself on this case!!!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!!
@ ever one that opposis Sarah
You have all lost on every level , right or wrong she can out think all of you because.
1 she dose not let her religious view's (what ever they may be) interfere whit the logic of the debate.
2 she "thinks" about the structure of her sentences so they have just one possible meaning.
3 and most importantly she doesn't let her shock and dismay of your ignorance of the subject fluster her comments.
once again thanks Sarah if I see you are on I don't comment (be cause it can't be said any better)
Hi,
In order to solve this issue, the United States should just come out with a flat tax rate of some per centage.
The only reason their are loop holes is to favor the rich so that they could loophole their way out of paying as much taxes as everyone else.
This way if you work as a married couple you would take your yearly salaries and add them as one (you are married after all) and then tax them at the flat per centage points. I think this would solve about half of the gay marriage claims about marriage.
Speaking of our government, take a deep look at the wel fare program and social security, I worked hard all my life, waiting for retirement, and the United States Government now has social security as an entitlement, saying they don't have enough money to pay for it, so take wel fare and look at all the entitlemnets they get as compared to a person who worked hard all his life on what they want to take away because of not enough money. Yet wel fare they seem to be giving more to. Any how it seems like the wel fare people get free or real low rent housing, food stamps, and casual spending money all for not working. Ever notice that wel fare people at wally world have 2 big shopping carts full of food, while the person on social security has one shopping cart with a few measley items in it, because they have to pay for their house (which they worked hard all their life for) and pay what I call teachers taxes on their property which continuosly goes up and other taxes as seen fit by their city, county, state, and federal. Yet the poor wel fare recepient gets everything including medical and dental at our expense.
Why work?
Take a look and add up the wel fare money and bennies compared to social security bennies and then compare both then deduct taxes that have to be paid by whoam, how does all this fit into gay marriage, well they just want to claim marriage as another scam to lessen their taxes, thats why I am all for a flat rate which will never happen because the rich and the very rich have this blocked, and just remember congress which has put a hold on all civil servants pay, just gave themselves a pay raise of $1,800 and up because they are not exactly poor.
The church and it's bigoted ilk are going to lose on this. You can't come up with any substantive argument (not involving your beliefs) which supports denying people their civil rights. Religion loses this one, the people win.
I can't believe how religious people want to scream how same sex is a SIN (it's in the bible it's in the bible) yet are somehow silent on the bible's edict that adulterous women be stoned to death. Why aren't you supporting your beliefs? IT'S IN THE BIBLE!!!
The church has spent centuries trying to enforce it's will on the world. Sure the allegories invoked in the bible are a good base to build on for being a good person, but they were written by men who thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Talking snakes and bushes, putting two of every creature on earth on a boat, and taking a man's rib to make a woman are laughable now. Mankind has progressed, so should the church.
You're right Smerf . . WHY WORK???
We just want all the SAME FEDERAL and STATE partner benefits for SAME SEX Marriages . .
From most of these post the people who support gay marriage seem to be concerned about getting more money. Of course there is nothing wrong with that, marriage has been about money and property probably from the first union, it is only later and more socially acceptable that we admit to it. This certainly could be managed without getting married though.
Funny how the reasons for getting married and divorced are very much the same.
Two men were in a bar celebrating, one older and the other younger. The older gentleman asked what the younger man was celebrating and the younger replied getting married so I can get laid every night. What are you celebrating, the older man replied getting divorced so I can get laid every night.
The belief that the earth is the center of the universe is also rooted in thousands of years of "historical fact" ... it still doesn't mean that its true. Tradition is great for deciding whether to open Christmas gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning, but it is a terrible way of of ensuring equality for all Americans.
Avenger,
No, that's why we have incest laws. Because if two first cousins are going to sleep together, do you REALLY think marriage is going to be the deciding factor.
"Well geez Cletus, I can't sleep with you now, cuzza we ain't married. Well, shucks!"
All this talk about puberty and marrying cousins, great balls of fire what's next?.
Sarah-3043284
Hey ucccccckkkk
What is the prerequisite requirement for marriage?
Sarah-3043284
Of course you can bable on and on attemptting to justify your lifestyle. The one thing you will be unable to talk your way out of is a shorter life than your straight friends up the street. If you and I were to be the same age right now the odds are very much in my favor that i will live 2 decades longer than you. You can talk and talk all you want on how there is nothing wrong with a gay lifestyle. Nature however seems to think differently about it. Nature is doing it part to cull the heard so to speak by bringing death sooner than normal to those who chose to defy the rules.
you can call me what ever you chose. You can mock me all you want. You can write another explanation of how this statement doesn't apply to you.But the obituaries ar filled with proof otherwise.
We as a country should not allow same sex marriage. Gay lifestyle should never be considered as "normal" but rather a choice and for that reason not afforded the same cedibility as that of a straight couple.
Avenger,
I'm gay??? Hmmm, I never knew that. It's pretty sad that you can't comprehend that anyone who isn't gay might support this issue.
Also, your source for those "statistics"???
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/07/bob-marshall/bob-marshall-says-homosexual-behavior-cuts-life-ex/
You mean, I can logically illustrate how your position makes no sense and isn't backed by any credible evidence.
That's your opinion. If you want to force your opinion on the rest of us you actually have to prove WHY it has merit and a compelling state interest behind it.
To anyone who can answer this question...What are the perequisite for marriage?
Legal capacity for informed consent, so that you may enter a contract. No close relation to who you are marrying, due to INCEST LAWS, after all relatives can still have sex with each other outside of marriage. And no current, legal marriage simultaneously.
Is should be in there.
So by your "logic," because religion is a choice, those who believe in any type of organized religion should not be afforded the same credibility as atheists and agnostics. You appear to be saying that we should only afford civil rights to those who are "normal" -- which is not defined, but a subjective qualifier.
Noted.
sarah sarah sarah............Just how many links woule you like to back my last comment ? 10 ..20 maybe 30 would do ? The point is you continue to be in denial that homosexuality may not be as fine and dandy a lifestyle as you claim and has consequences that should not be concidered as the way it should be.
These are the prereqyusite for marriage:
Must be 18yrs & older, ( parental permission if a minor).
Must be consenting.
Be sober and have the processing fee upfront.
Need birth certificate, and S.S card along with photo I.D.
Blood test for STD's...
Avenger,
Well, considering the current grand total is ZERO, one would be nice.
Prove those consequences exist, then. It should be easy since you claim they're so plentiful.
@ avenger
"We as a country should not allow same sex marriage. Gay lifestyle should never be considered as "normal" but rather a choice and for that reason not afforded the same credibility as that of a straight couple."
Gay is not a choice,I assume you are male so describe what it is about a female that is so alluring ,
now imagine you are still you but your genes accidentally grew a vagina. its just that simple ,unless you think its perverted for someone born with no arms to wish they had them.
further more I don't believe you sat down with 1000's of random obituary's and counted deaths of gays and non gays (something most obits don't mention) worked out the age of death and came up with a % .so someone has been feeding you B.S.....likely a cult leader.
her ya go Sarah-3043284, I only listed a few links for you. Noe real need for me to do more because you will attempt to refute the results you see there. Fact still remains If you are gay you will be in the ground laong before your time on average.
"Constantine adopted Christianity in 313 AD, banned gay unions in 342 AD"
Classifying sexual depravity as "Gay" has only been around for about five years at most. You are bastardizing language in an obvious attempt to lend an appearance of acceptability to your proclivity; putting lipstick on the pig.
Christianity was around for over three hundred years before Constantine saw the light and the only instance of sanctioned same gendered unions up until that time was under Nero of Rome; the only other time in all of recorded history it was ever considered.
You folks spent about five years referring to yourselves as "Queer" until the nature of your depravity left a negative connotation to the word; then you switched up and put yourselves under the LGBT umbrella, but now that the nature of your proclivity has tarnished that label you are now referring to all sexual deviants as "Gay" and you will continue do so until the decay that accompanies your proclivity turns that word against you as it has all the others.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay&allowed_in_frame=0
Really, Randy? Do you ever bother to research ANYTHING before you post? It seems not:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
Too bad for bigots like you, Randy, that homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed -- so they aren't going away. Deal with it.
Ahhh Avenger,
No you didn't.
But you're right about refuting...
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/07/bob-marshall/bob-marshall-says-homosexual-behavior-cuts-life-ex/
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html
Randy, again you prove your ignorance-
Greeks married men to men. Rome allowed gay marriage for a time. Also note that your precious Bible promotes slavery, human sacrifice, and polygamy (not that there's anything particularly bad about polygamy). And by the way, our Constitution specifically prohibits laws based on forcing people to follow one religion. It's calle the First Amendment, to wit;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This means you cannot use religion in order to justify a law. Now. legalizing same-sex marriage does not, in any way, force any church, synagogoue, mosque, coven, or any other religious institution to perform gay marriages. THAT would violate your right to "the free excercise thereof". Just as forcing religious organizations to fund abortions should be prohibited if it violates a tenent of their religion. You see, decent human beings support ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that support their views, and only when used to support their views. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
@ Avenger
I read your links .......a quote from it " He said Marshall’s statement is a "gross misrepresentation" of the research."
so WTF
The Greeks did not marry men to men; this is a lie.
Religion: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins" Benjamin Franklin
This means any system of belief is a religion; even your religion of sexual depravity. You can no sooner impose your depraved religion on others as they could impose theirs on you; save for those beliefs that are consistent with the laws of nature and natures God.
Gay:
Sorry! But Greeks did perform same sex marriages occasionally. They were not common. It was also quite common for Greek men to have a young boy (12-14) to teach manly values to. This included sex. With men.
Here's the simple fact- you have a belief system that includes a man whose mommy convinced her family she hadn't @!$%#ed around with a used camel salesman, but instead somehow got pregnant from a ghost. She was so smart, and so convincing, she made her kid believe it, too. Now, you sing songs to this man, and want everyone else to do so as well.
Now, if it makes you happy to believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of Gid, feel free. But your belief in that does not give you the right to deny other Americans the right to know love, not matter what or how many consenting adults that may be with. I happen to have a lovely wife and four great kids. I wish everyone could be as happy as I am. But as long as bigots like you use your own belief system (Slut who lied about how she got pregnant) to deny them the opportunity, they cannot be as happy as Jesus himself wanted. Remember- Judge not, lest ye be judged. You see, your church weddings are not endangered by gay men getting married, or lesbian women getting married, or a polyandrous or polygamous marriage being permitted.
Randy, quoting the same definition back to me which I had given you in the first place hardly does anything for your credibility (such as it is).
Furthermore, you obviously have not studied history, if you believe that the Greeks did not marry men to men -- many ancient civilizations apparently tolerated and accepted same-sex marriage.
They not perform same gender marriages in Greece; when Socrates suggested normalizing same gender sexual relations he his offered the opportunity to kill himself in a grand gesture to keep their civilization from collapsing from within; and he accepted.
And my quotes point out that the word "Gay" is an adjective; not a noun. ie; "Gay" has been used as slang in reference to promiscuity; not a reference to a race, or species of man, that are "born that way."
My grasp of history is rooted in actuals; whereas yours is rooted in your desire to find someone else to blame for the choices you make in this life. In your quest to create willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes you perpetrate against them you failed to notice that you built your house on quicksand.
Randy, all of the available historical data states that there is overwhelming evidence that same-sex marriages WERE performed in ancient Greece; that you keep stating otherwise will not make your statements true.
Furthermore, the definition I provided for "gay" explicitly states that it is an adjective, not a noun. It is not associated with promiscuity by definition. The definition does explain (at the very end) how it can be used as a noun to refer to homosexuals.
Your "grasp of history" is not "rooted in actuals," Randy -- it is non-existent, to say the least.
Randy, Socrates was tried and found guilty of what we would call heresy. He was found guilty of "failing to acknowledge the gods the city acknowledged" and "introducing new gods." Nothing about same gender sexual relations.
Your grasp of history is rooted in nothing because you just keep making it up.
Socrates was a sexual deviant who frequented bath houses and was known to prefer young boys. The leaders of Greece feared his popular influence would lead to the collapse of their civilization so he was afforded the opportunity to kill himself instead of having his works stricken from the record; which he accepted.
There is no actual data that shows they permitted same gender marriages in Greece; only suggestions that such things may have existed.
The entomology of the word "Gay" shows that it may have been used as a noun in reference to male deviants beginning in the 1970's; which is when you perverts started looking to create an appearance of legitimacy to your promiscuity. You folks have been using it as a noun in reference to all sexual deviants for the past two years because the LGBT and Homosexual labels you have been leaning on have fallen into disfavor.
I predict you will start referring to yourselves as Goony-ga-ga's just as soon as the decay that accompanies your depravity starts to do its work on the word "Gay."
Randy, trying to have a rational, factual discussion with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It only frustrates me and annoys the pig.
You are seeking to spread disinformation in your quest to create willing victims who affirm the acceptability of the crimes you perpetrate against them; you put no value in rational discourse because it will not help you satisfy your wants.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
I'm sorry you don't like history or facts.
Are you just calling me a sociopath or all gay supporters?
All those who claim the use of the word Gay as a noun offers them a semblance of authenticity are sociopaths; as are those who claim historical fallacies as facts.
So, because you disagree with some people's semantics and you don't know history, we're all sociopaths? Wow....
Randy is excellent at projecting, Misscreant; we all know who the REAL sociopath is...
It's nice to see Randy acknowledge his sociopathy. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards a cure!
He was tried for NOT accepting the Greek gods as being real, and for teaching the youth of Athens to do the same. NOT for being homosexual. So, you prove your sociopathy.
link Again, by your own definition, you prove your sociopathy.
Yet again, you prove your sociopathy.
So, Mr Sociopath, I'd suggest that before you put such a totally ignorant definition of sociopathy, you try reading A) the historical facts you claim don't exist, and B) the REAL definition of sociopathy!
so·ci·o·path
/ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/
Noun
A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
or the clinical definition-
Now, much of what you have said DOES happen to fit the real definition, but claiming a "historical fallacy as fact" does not happen to fit the bill.
Standard copywrite protected "no it isn't" and "so what" responses of your a-typical sociopaths that permeate the marriage corruption side of this discussion.
Repeating the same lie over and over again may make you feel better about yourself for the crimes you have committed against humanity, but it does not change the fact that what you champion is, in fact, a crime against humanity - the laws of nature and natures God.
Tell-tale signs of your a-typical sociopath; propensity to blame their victims of the crimes they themselves are guilty of, inability to see anything wrong with their activity, a belief that what they do is their right, and a principal goal of creating willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.
Pardon me, but can you please introduce me to this "natures (sic) God"? Not by handing me the writings of paleolithic goatherds and witchdocotrs, mind you, but the physical person.
I have committed no crimes against humanity. First off, being homosexual happens to be, evolutionarily speaking, a dead end. Yet itt occurs in many species of animal, in addition to man, throughout the animal kingdom despite that. Often in response to an imbalance in the male/female ratio. IF your so-called God created all, then he created homosexuals. They are therefore part of God's plan. And if he loves us all,then he loves them, too. Here's the deal. IF we accept your presumption that God exists and you are the correct ones about what he desires, and you accept the principle of free choice, then you should allow gays to go to hell their own way. And if you are wrong, then you should allow gays to find love how they please. Eather way, you need to Shut your arrogant, bigotted mouth and allow people to excercise their freedom of choice.
Randy has failed the test of Christ. Read Mark 12: 28-31. The first law is to love thy God, and the second is to love thy neighbor THERE IS NO OTHER COMMANDMENT GREATER THAN THESE! Randy plays lip service to love, but God won't be fooled. He uses the bible to push his agenda, not the word of Christ. Why would God create homosexuals? Perhaps he created them to test those that would hide their immorality in the cloak of Christ and try to use his words to push their own agenda. God created homosexuality and has allowed it to thrive in nature.
Neale I do have to disagree with you. If Homosexuality was a dead end it wouldn't exist in nature, period. It's been suggested that the same gene that creates male homosexuality also affects the homosexual's sisters making them more prolific taking up the slack of the male child. The funny thing is that if it really is genetic, then the act of pushing it in the closet led to it's proliferation as male children were forced to reproduce to prove they were something they weren't. The hatred of the faux Christian has in fact strengthened the very thing they're trying to destroy.
hey randyek, if you actually could prove your ability to write using English, then you wouldn't look like quite so much the lying fool that you are.
Stally- you might have a point. Not having acces to any study to prove it, I can't be sure. But one thing IS true- Gay men cannot reproduce without either medical intervention or the use of a female and a distasteful ( to them) "normal" sexual encounter. Ditto for gay women. Personally, I have no real care why "gay" exists, except for the poor sad people abused so badly that they are psychologically driven to it, rather than being naturally wired that way. My point is, gay occurs naturally. Therefore, nature has a reason for it. Legislating it into criminality, denying those who are their right to publicly express their love, or forcing them into programs designed to "cure" them of their "deviant sexual lifestyle" are all ways to abuse people who have no choice as to what they are. And I find the best cure for abusers is to shoot them. Color me atavistic, but ANY abuse deserves a swift and violent reprisal. No matter the "justification" used to support that abuse.
repeating the same bigoted shyte over and over may make you feel better about yourself and the proven fact that you are full of hatred, but it doesn't make any of the shyte you are spewing any more true.
There are a lot of examples in nature of things that don’t reproduce. Most bees and ants are sterile. Yet they provide an evolutionary benefit. Evolution is very complex and direct reproduction is a very simplistic way of viewing things. I don’t need to reproduce; I need to provide a reproductive benefit. Obviously since Homosexuality has been around for a very long time and it hasn’t been eliminated by evolution it is either a benign trait (which seems unlikely because benign traits fade over time) or it provides some evolutionary benefit that we don’t understand. If it were a detrimental trait evolution would have eliminated it eons ago. I only add this because evolution is basically saying this is a benign or necessary trait. People who claim otherwise are saying the sky is green.
I completely agree with this. I would go further to say that even if it were a choice society doesn’t have a right to legislate it unless they can demonstrate harm. Until recently people were able to fake data and statistics to support their personal bigotry. Now it’s a lot harder. Repeating a lie no longer convinces people, it simply gets you called a liar. We now know there has been a several thousand year propaganda campaign against homosexuality and now that the so called facts can be challenged the lie is falling apart. Homosexuality didn’t make God’s top 10. Lying and slander did. This is starting to destroy the foundations of many religious organizations because the more they try to perpetuate the lie the more they expose their own immorality. Subjugating and repressing people based on a lie is far more insidious and evil than any homosexual act.
"When you belong to me you will hate what I hate"
Hating what God hates is not a sin; it happens to be divine.
which is exactly the same rationale that the taliban uses.
the thing is randy, you can believe as you will, but don't try to force your religion into law and stop making shyte up simply to ensure that your intolerant religious viewpoint controls all those that don't agree with your view.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES DEMAND! THAT ALL CONFORM TO THEIR BELIEFS, NO MATTER HOW IRRATIONAL
In every statement of empathy that Jesus makes, he never once says that. Jesus NEVER says love thy neighbor unless God hates him. Satan would say that but Jesus never does.
I am (obviously) atheist. More people have been killed in the name of a god of "love" than for any other reason. IF there is a god, I have the feeling he'd be disgusted in Christians, Jews, and Muslims for the way they have killed in his "name"!
The supreme court should not be hearing any state cases. B ut, we know the feds are gonna cram this thing down americans throats cause they don't believe in states rights. By the end of this, americans may be able to marry dogs if words can be twisted enough.
"Twisted" isn't the word I would apply to those seeking equality.
The "animal thing" does come up alot with you deniers, that seems a bit "twisted".
If you don't want something "down your throat," keep your mouth shut.
If you want to marry a dog, be prepared for a big disappointment. Fido will, no doubt, turn YOU down.
You just are not marriage material.
Neither are a bunch of gay people ...who cannot even breed naturally...but then you like to just call people names anyway...without having any real thought.
Lets all be homosexuals and end the world population in a 100 years...that would work so well...
The GAY AGENDA march's on...
I'm sick of this court. Now they rule on things explicitly left out of the constitution? So where is their jurisdiction then? If it includes all things in the constitution AND all things left out of the constitution, then that just about covers everything, doesn't it? This group of 5 conservatives (apparently the other 4 don't matter since they're out-voted) is unelected yet ruling without check upon the entire country!
funny how the right cries about "states rights" then forces such stupidity as DOMA down everyone's throat.
If , as you believe, that states should be able to do anything they wanted why was the Dred Scott, Topeka vs. Board of Education 1954, Voting Rights Act, etc., etc., take away a states right to discriminate? Let anyone that falls in love, and is of a legal age, marry and be happy. This is a human right. It is time to stop this nonsense and move on.
nobody can logically support DOMA and then scream about "states rights", since DOMA is clearly against states rights
shosyn, do you actually hava a logical argument?
most people aren't "going to be honosexual", and the "breeding" argument is utterly irrelevant, since there are heterosexual couples that can't "breed normally" either due to various medical conditions. or would you prevent them from getting married too, since they 'can't breed normally"?
MikeDavis,
Equal protection is in the Constitution. So is the 9th Amendment that says just because something ISN'T in the there doesn't mean we don't have a right to it. So is the establishment clause.
These are the same illogical arguments we heard ad nauseum when Prop 8 was being decided in California. Other arguments included that gays will be trying to "recruit" our children to be gay. The ignorant ultra-right wing conservatives appeal to voters' lack of intellect so they can try to control and decide "morality" for everyone in America. The sad part is that it is utterly "immoral" to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and the rest of the world, except of course those Islamic countries that the right-wingers soundly condemn, see America as out of touch with reality when it comes to this issue.
Sarah: Well done for making me go look those up. I did read it recently, but the details are hard to remember.
"Neither are a bunch of gay people ...who cannot even breed naturally"
Half the children born in the US do not have married, biological parents. Half the marriages in the US end in divorce. What's "natural" about that?
If the purpose of marriage is "natural breeding" then biologists or doctors, or even some astute cattle ranchers should be deciding who can marry, who can mate, what to do with the offspring.
Your concept of marriage works fine, when some of the offspring are taken off to slaughter and we eat them.
World's population is over 7 billion, projected to go to 9 billion. Don't need marriage for that to continue. US population 150 million in 1950. US population today over 300 million.
Sure do hope more gay people marry. Someone has to adopt all the surplus kids. Breeders don't seem to know how they came about, or what to do with them.
#2 you had a good point up until the last sentence...should have just kept that out. But you are right, and if the dog marrying community had a good lobby this would be tomorrows breaking news....its all about the lobby...People who like the same sex, get your $$ together...its only a bribe away....and that goes for anything we want...all it takes is a few million in bribes and anything is possible. ( im am all for same sex, it just gets annoying when things like Chick fillet take over FB..which is why i abandoned that pathetic site..and hang out here instead, as a matter of fact, why should i even know what sex you love...i dont care. Shoot Ive dated all my life and still cant find someone I love..more power to ya).
When an animal can give consent, then you "people will marry animals" folks will have an argument.
Misscreant you should look up silly laws...there are some that include animals...gross but its there.
My doberman will you take me as your lawfully wedded husband please bark once for I DO "ruff"
You now may kiss the bride ***dog licks face***
So my question is this if my newly acquired wife has a litter (9) of puppies do I get child tax credits?
Also the poverty rate is by the # in the household so I my wife/dog and 9 puppies = 11 which is approx $50,000 a year
So can I have two wives ?? my human one and my dog ?? or is that against the law??
Randy,
You can marry your dog just as soon as it can give informed consent. By the way, since marriage is a contract, can you please tell me why gays buying houses doesn't concern you??? I mean after all, it might lead to animals buying houses, right?
@Sarah,
Equal protection is not in the constitution; equal access is.
Bastardizing language does not make your proclivity more acceptable any more than calling a banana a pea make it a grape. If you truly believed you depravity were acceptable you would not be insisting it be referred to that which it is incapable of ever becoming.
Not five years ago you perverts insisted on referring to yourselves as the LGBT, but now you all refer to yourselves collectively as "Gay" because you obviously believe it makes you appear more authentic.
Why don't you sit down with your partners in crime and come up with a descriptive you can stick with?
Did you stop reading at amendment 13?
Your opinion. Completely subjective, and might I say quite arrogant.
But you just said semantics and language don't count.
We did. It's called marriage.
The "animal thing" does come up alot with you deniers, that seems a bit "twisted".
@WilliamOfRites .. the anti-gay crowd is absolutely obsessed with marrying animals. They must have some deep-seating longing to do so themselves. Their thought processes are very scary.
LOL, Randy, equal protection is most certainly a Constitutional right. Get educated on the subject matter. 14th Amendment, read it, comprehend it, or take a civics class.
The constitution states:
"...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"
At no time does it ever state:
MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY
http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/equality-constitution.html
Disinformation only makes you look desperate to transfer your sense of guilt on to others.
Actually, that's pretty much precisely what it means. It also says a whole lot more than just that.
From your own source...
wow Sarah, you really are on a rampage.I don't think the authors of the constitution ever saw a situation like this coming.It really does'nt matter though.Beware the phrase in sec 1 ..nor shall the state deprive any person of life,liberty,or property WITHOUT do process of law.In other words they can't deprive you of said things without passing a law.Some could interpet that as a loophole.If twisted properly, Section 1 could work both ways.
That's because a lot of these dumb bigots are Southern Baptists and they're the ones who legalized bestiality in Texas.
That's the part people forget about Lawrence v Texas......the part of the Texas sodomy law which still remains in effect is the part which repealed their former prohibition on bestiality.
They didn't see wummin folk and negroes voting as good ideas either.
Interesting though that you think America should still have 2nd-class citizens.
skrekk.......... i never said that.not even close.you are one of those peope that just spin people words around....the only 2nd class citzens are those that allow themselves to be 2nd class.you apparently are one of those people who will twist wordsjust to cause trouble.You are no better than any other politician in Washington.
So if they rule DOMA and Prop. 8 unconstitutional , wouldn't that also apply to regulation of marriages between any consenting adults, including polygamy?
I was making a joke but gay people seem to lack a sense of humor.
Only question I have is who gets the mine and who gets the shaft in a divorce???
if they have kids who keeps them??
history shows the female wins out the most but with gays ????????
Yes, polygamy would also be legalized, using the very same arguments in support of gay marriage.
No, polygamy would not be made legal if gay marriage is. Polygamy involves a whole bunch of other issues. Now, if they could work out how to deal with property rights, next of kin issues, and make sure it is only between consenting adults, among other things, I say have at it and make polygamy legal.
So what exactly are you trying to say? It sure sounded like you were saying that it was a good thing that from the very beginning America has treated some Americans as 2nd-class citizens.
The fact that we've had such things as blue laws and sodomy laws is simply a sign that even though we've had a nominal separation of church and state, we still have a ways to go in ridding our government of Christian sharia law.
At the end of the day all of the sh*t said in
this thread... All of these threads is irrelevant whether you're arguing for or against. If it's not about equality, it doesn't matter, because that's the key. THAT'S why gay marriage will inevitably be legalized. Equality is what matters.TroyO
At the end of the day all of the sh*t said in
this thread... All of these threads is irrelevant whether you're arguing for or against. If it's not about equality, it doesn't matter, because that's the key. THAT'S why gay marriage will inevitably be legalized. Equality is what matters.There is no equality when comparing straight marriage and gay marriage. The two are different. The only common factor is love, and we are all free to love who we choose. I love my brothers and sisters. I love my friends and neighbors. Beyond that the similarity ends. We have the means legally today for gay couples to share personal wealth and pass on estate properties. the gay community simply wants something that is not possible to achive by any leagal means or natural means. A relationsship and marriage between a male and a male or female and female will never be equal to a relationship and marriage between a male and female. There is no equality between the two. They are different and should not be grouped and called equal.
Avenger . . what do you know about love? FINALLY MY PARTNERS& MY LOVE WILL BE RATIFIED!! THANK YOU MR OBAMA FOR EILEEN KAGEN!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!! Now you and other Taxpayers can pay for our benefits too Avenger!!!
God i feel sorry for those kids........I have no problem with gay marriage, but I do have a problem with 2 gay men rasing a child.......Poor kids will be so twisted.
By the way gay guy, do you think the American public should be forced to pay for your health care? Why don't you and your ilk pay your own way like the rest of us? Or do you have a mommy syndrome?
Dems,
Gay guy is actually on your side. He's being sarcastic in an attempt to make a point. You can tell by his obsession with "bold print".
Guess that went over your head too.
Man, Sarah, you're on fire this morning.
Playing lie and swear to it makes you look corrupt; not effective.
Factual historic data and the U.S. Constitution stand in judgment against your ridiculous assertions. The only thing you folks have for your defense is your unsubstantiated assertion that those that came before you did not mean what they said when the said what they said.
Your depravity was still on the books as a crime in the country all the way up to 1996. Yet here you are insisting that that was never the case; that your proclivity was always viewed as a natural aspect of life throughout all of world history.
Tell-tale signs of your a-typical sociopath; propensity to blame their victims of the crimes they themselves are guilty of, inability to see anything wrong with their activity, a belief that what they do is their right, and a principal goal of creating willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.
randyek, you still utterly fail to describe who the so-called "crimes" are being perpetrated against.
who are the "victims" of your so-called "crimes"?
Since when have they cared about the "legality" of denying civil rights??
""This is a monumental action by the Supreme Court, because we know they're going to say something about gay marriage for the first time ever."
In 1970, over 42 years ago, a couple in Minnesota ask for a marriage license and the state refused to give them a license. Their case, Baker versus Nelson, arrived at the Supreme Court in 1972. The Court dismissed the case without hearing it "for want of a substantial Federal question."
No state had ever married a same-sex couple. Gay couples throughout the country were asking their states for marriage licenses in the 1970's. We did. There was no Federal law, like DOMA, at issue.
Congress, by enacting DOMA in 1996, establish a Federal issue. When gay couples legally married in Massachusetts in 2004 there was finally a Federal issue. It has taken eight years to get the Court to hear the issue.
Strange that civil rights can be ignored, put off, denied for so long. And the current cases the Court has finally taken, can continue for years, putting off, denying equal rights for gays.
I am 63 years old. My husband is 73. We have been together for 38 years, married in California in 2008, 33 years after asking for a marriage license.
What do we call this delay? An extended "engagement?" One of us, as a survivor, will, no doubt, have to bring yet another case like Windsor's estate tax issue to get our full civil rights. With over 1,000 federal rights tied to marriage, does the Court want to spend another 1,000 years deciding we are human beings? We are Americans? We are worthy of equal rights?
Sorry, but twice the people of CA have said no to your homosexual relationship as a marriage... move to MA.
The thing that gets me is this is not a civil right issue! These people where not born gay, they chose at some point in their life to be that way for whatever reason.
MIC
I'm curious. Exactly when did you chose to be straight? Do you remember the moment? I mean, if being gay is a choice then being straight must be too. So when did you make that choice?
Prof,
We're a republic. We don't allow civil rights of the minority to be voted on by the majority.
MIC,
Yes it is.
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,
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...
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.
Now, if you could just show us how this lessens, SUBSTANTIVELY, your marriage, you may have a point. But that means you can't just say it "hurts your feelings". You have to prove it actually takes something away from you.
"These people where not born gay, they chose at some point in their life to be that way for whatever reason."
Gee, religious people were not born that way. Do hear a number of "born-again" christians suffer from a high rate of birth defects. At some point in their lives they decided to be that way, for NO reason.
LeslieDF, I love your comment. I think the reason some people decide to be "born again" is so they can feel justified in hating others and feel it's okay because it's in the name of God. I'm convinced this particular subset of Christians are a miserable lot and misery loves company. As far as being gay, nobody chooses their sexuality. Those who think people do choose are closet cases who put all of their energy into denying their own natural feelings toward the same gender, and therefore are miserable. They can't stand that others are couragous enough to live their own lives and express what they themselves are afraid to express but want to. Thats the only reason they could think everyone would turn gay if gay marriage were to become a "right". Like the poster above who said if gay marriage was allowed the human race would die out in one hundred years. Tax paying and law abiding citizens should have the same legal rights and recognition as other tax paying law abiding citizens. Anything less is disciminatory.
Sarah, your too smart for this site... I love reading your comments. Especially the other day when it was a bitter battle of comments from others towards you, you really know your stuff. I admire your wording so much. I could never speak with such conviction and facts to back them!!
Sarah, again you have my honest admiration, for your cogent, well-researched, and completely logical arguments. Keep it up.
@Sarah,
you do not have a civil right to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage for the rest of us. Go sell crazy somewhere else!
Randy,
Please just show us how allowing gay people to marry changes your marriage. And please, make it substantive, not some crazy, subjective dribble.
Sarah ... you know that you're wasting your time asking Randy to explain how marriage equality threatens his marriage, especially when you rule out crazy, subjective dribble. Still, I have to admire your optimism.
@dsb ... the funny thing is, people who claim that being gay is a choice will ALWAYS deny that they made a choice to be straight. Yet, they never seem to see the contradiction in their position.
Barry,
LOL, hope springs eternal, I guess.
I choose to do everything I do; to love everything a choose to love, to eat what I choose to eat, etc...
The price of freedom is personal responsibility; a price that is obviously to steep for those who masturbate against same gendered companions.
Yeah, and you'd be pissed as hell if someone who has no stake in your choices and is not effected in anyway by your choices, started trying to tell you your choice was "banned", but refuse to give you a good reason why.
Not that being gay is a choice, but if it was you just made the case for keeping your nose out of it.
So, any thoughts on polygamy from this group?
No More,
Why doesn't straight marriage lead to polygamy? After all, it has much more in come with heterosexual marriage, seeing as religious fundamentalists participate in it, in a heterosexual manner and they tend to be vehemently anti-gay in their dogma.
There's your answer. That's a distraction and an illogical fear/argument.
@ MIC
actually it has been proven that a person is born gay. brain pattern and brain wave tests, has shown that a person is born with their sexual persuasion, and they dont have a choice about it.
america is supposed to be the land of the free. so why is doma even allowed. how can a persons right to marry who they want, whether straight or gay be denied. america will never be the land of the free if we continue to deny rights, such as marriage to certain individuals. hopefully the supreme court will over turn doma, like they over turned the laws that denied an african american to be married to a caucasion.
Yet here you are demanding public recognition, support, and acceptance of your choice while simultaneously demanding that it is not the publics business.
Sociopath much?
So it's OK for you to do that with your marriage, but not for gays or mixed-race couples to do it with theirs?
Sounds like you're both a greedy bigot and a hypocrite.
These miscreants have facades designed to lend an appearance of acceptability to their decadence; they do not have marriages.
Accusing your victims of the crimes you are guilty of is another tell-tale sign of your a-typical sociopath.
Sounds like Randy wants special rights and privileges - he must have been raised in the Jim Crow south.
Deviants, The US SC will rule only on the federal role. They will likely over rule DOMA and leave it to the decisions of states. Then each one of our states can either side with deviancy or normalcy. Move to the left coast if y'all want to be deviants and then you will make sure that your genes do not get into the gene pool. Aids will take care of that problem
If DOMA is struck down in its entirety, states will probably be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states ... or recognize none at all. The difference is that the revenue generated by those marriage ceremonies will benefit other states.
Randy,
Nobody cares if you support them or recognize them. Their demanding that they get the same marriage benefits and right from the STATE.
I highly doubt anybody gives a crap if YOU give them your blessing.
Sarah claims "we are a repulblic" which is correct, but the democrat party always cries that we are a democracy when the agenda best suits them.
So Sarah, if states are forced to recognize gay marriage, does that mean that churches should be forced to marry gays? Is it ok for this ilk to violate another ilks freedoms? I could care less if gays get married, but the government has no place forcing gay marriage on the religious extremist because the gay extremist bitch and moan for it.
Nope. Nor is legal for anyone, including the government to force them to. See, the 1st Amendment. We're discussing gay marriage, not gay Holy Matrimony.
Don't twist it around. You know just as well as I do that some gay couple will turn around and sue a church for discrimination if they refuse to marry them, which would also violate their freedoms.
No I don't. And what exactly did I twist. Does or does not the 1st Amendment protect churches from government intrusion?
If gay marriage becomes law, then Pandora's box will be opened for gays to sue the church for discrimination if they refuse to marry them. That is just common sense. The Constitution is ignored unless it fits a certain parties criteria. The constitution also protects us from the government forcing us to buy a service, but that didn't stop the health care law now did it? The 2nd amendment does mention guns, but it hasn't stopped that right from being violated...Freedom of speech doesn't mention that freedom stops if you offend someone, but that hasn't stopped government intrusion on violating that law has it?
I guess anyone could try to sue a church for that, but they would have the same amount of success as a divorced person would in suing the Catholic Church for not performing his/her subsequent marriage(s).
Dems,
Have you heard of the fallacy of proof by assertion?
Please ... Churches can and do refuse marriages today on other grounds. They can refuse to marry you because they don't consider you divorced while the state might. I've known priests to refuse because you haven't recieved all your sacraments. There are a multitude of reasons why a church can deny you today and they're perfectly legal because the state is not obligated to honor or dishonor any marriage by a church.
So DAH, are you also saying that churches have been successfully sued for denying interracial weddings?
You are demanding society treat your decadence as though it were a public benefit; you are demanding public acceptance and support while simultaneously demanding it is nobody's business.
It is like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre then saying "what the hell are you looking at" when people look your way; classic tactic of your a-typical sociopath.
Gays are not demanding acceptance, Randy, because they don't give two @!$%#s about the acceptance of bigots like you; they just want equal treatment under the law -- and the courts agree that they deserve it, as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country.
Where I live people rarely marry anymore. If you live as a couple together, gay or straight, you have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Sweden
except the tax breaks...and that is why the DOMA were formed and are mad err paid to battle a issue...because millions of dollars are going to be paid out insead of in. Its about the doe, the $$$ and thats all it has ever been about to the fed...they just keep quite about this and let the religious stick their heads out and look silly, that takes away the attention from the revenue loss and why they keep putting this issue on the back burner...its all about the $$$ or the lack of it. only this would be fixed if we had a flat tax rate...but no no no...keep the issues alive..it makes them rich
Wrong. As the courts have repeatedly found, DOMA was all about anti-gay animus based in religion.
In the first DOMA case, judge Tauro reviewed the congressional record and found DOMA unconstitutional in large part because of the very obvious religious bias and unconstitutional animus.
You would think that the way this country is going (or not) there would be far more important issues that these judges would tackle... when are they going to keep out of peoples lives and do something positive for the country...
"when are they going to keep out of peoples lives and do something positive for the country"
Ask Republicans in Congress, not the Supreme Court.
"ask republican in congress, not supreme court."
Don't for get the Democrats they want to raise taxes on the rich, now if they raise taxes then everyone will be getting hit with higher taxes, but the governement will not cut spending. This is a perfect point spending time and money on an issue that should not even be considered a civil rights issue! They where not born gay, they choose to be that way!
Remember: it was BILL (Republican?) CLINTON that signed the DOMA into LAW! Duuh!
This case IS about keeping government out and limiting their power.
Howdy, under a 62% republican congress. The vote on DOMA had a 71% majority, too high to veto. Get your facts straight and complete please.
Come back and say that again when your civil rights are being denied.
62% Rep. Congress.
71% majority voted for DOMA
I would say then there had to be some Dem. voted for DOMA
its important because it effect the amount of tax revenue generated by marriage...more married couples, less tax..simple. DOMA is circumventing the fiscal issue with this....and i have a positive feeling its Boehner behind this...to riffle Obamas feathers...
but if democrates opposed this....then it would have been a large public battle between the two and frankly I didn't ever even hear of a duke out over this....
what is its you call when the republicans refuse to approve something and it goes nowhere...like the fiscal issue? what is that called and why wasn't that used?
There are/were religious democrats who voted on the issue, yes. My point is the majority of americans did not support DOMA. The uber conservatives (who we all know come out of Texas and the bible belt) and the catholic democrats did. That does not truly a majority make.
If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter who, or how many, voted for it. That's the point of a constitution.
Isnt Biden a Catholic Democrat?
Currently 65% of Democrats support marriage equality while only 24% of Republicans do. And no surprise at all that 94% of teabaggers oppose it.
71% of Catholics support it too, just like Biden does today. He's said that his vote for it in 1996 was the wrong thing to do, but it was an election year and the GOP specifically created it as a wedge issue (which is why Clinton voted for it, given that his veto wouldn't have accomplished anything).
Even the author of DOMA, Bob Barr, now says that it's plainly unconstitutional.
This is not a case of limited government power as Sarah states above. It's about an agenda.....
If you truly care about freedom you would vote for the people who believe a marriage certificate is a government ran scam to collect money.......
Because the government shouldn't be telling the citizens who they CAN'T contract with, when those people have legal capacity for informed consent, without a damn good reason, which they don't have.
Your illogical fear is showing. Agenda? Call me when someone tries to force you or yours to get gay married. I'll defend you too.
Did I say they should? Its all about an agenda with your party. The government also has no business telling people that they have to buy a service but that is no longer the case, now is it?
Dems,
Can I borrow your copy of this "agenda", then??? I've never received mine.
I think I'm the one who needs to borrow that copy, so I can see how the party of twisted words plans on @!$%#ing me next.
Gee, "equal rights under the law." What a heinous liberal agenda...
Gay marriage will soon be legal but it will never be accepted by the catholics, muslims or other major religous groups. Look how long abortion has been legal. The fight will have been won at the Supreme Court. Marriage has religous and legal sides. The legal will soon be settled but the other side will have to get dragged kicking and screaming into acceptance.
So-called "religious" people will not have to "get dragged kicking and screaming into acceptance" of any marriage. They will continue to refuse to marry anyone, for any reason, they say they "believe" cannot be married.
Everyone goes to city hall to get a marriage license. Some people will continue to go to a "religious" place after city hall. What they do is their own business. Certainly not worthy of comment by anyone else. Certainly never recognized as marriage, unless the couple visit city hall.
No straight couple married by a "religious" group, ever had to go around their state asking people to vote on their marriage, did they?
Sure as soon as gay marriage becomes legal some people will be upset about it then decades later those who opposed it will try to hog all the glory and take all the credit for making it happen.
so what if religion does not accept this...who cares, they control NOTHING but those who follow them. Religion has its place...and its way the heck at the bottom. Why? Becaue your religion is not allowed to affect me....that is the law.
As roadlesstraveled stated, who cares? The Catholic Church, and many Catholics, still don't accept divorce. But, that's their problem. If someone is opposed to a same-sex marriage, they don't have to marry someone of the same-sex.
You must be a member of one of the extremely bigoted cults like the Mormons or Southern Baptists.
FYI, 71% of Catholics support marriage equality, and there are many gay-friendly churches and large denominations which fully support it, like the Episcopal church, ELCA, UCC, Reform Jews, etc.
Why is everything now gay? What happened to homosexual? Does having a better sounding word make it more acceptable? Call a spade a spade. the previous writer was correct, only one state passed a citizenn's vote for homosexual marriage all the rest have been forced to accept homosexual marriage by the court systems. The courts and the dems have destroyed the country by redistributing income in our society where the drones live off the workers. Soon we will be a welfare state like Sweden. Check out their tax rates.
It is the same reason I call you an annoying uninformed person rather than a mother @!$%#er.
If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen... the word is homosexual.. don't like it? tough.
"all the rest have been forced to accept homosexual marriage"
Two people ask each other to marry. Not you, or anyone else.
Sorry, if you did not get asked to attend the wedding. There was a reason you were not asked.
"Straight marriage" sounds so "acceptable" too. If it ends 50% of the time, it's called "traditional" marriage.
Check out there income, education, healthcare, housing, longevity, crime rate, infant mortality rate and a hundred other bellweather markers for quality of life.
If you had been educated in Sweden you probably would not have made such a foolish assertion.
"Straight marriage sounds so acceptable too....."
Just wait you will be seeing Gay or Homosexual devorce's also and they will be about the same percentage as traditional marriages. I know a gay couple they stay together a couple of months then one desides she wants to shack up with another woman for a while so they break up for a few months, then get back together. Then the other woman desides she really wants a man so she shacks up with a man then eventually the first two woman get back together for a few months, and the whole cycle starts again.
MIC, that argument works up until you realize that isn't the norm. Despite the Heritage foundation's bigoted studies, homosexual couples actually have a better fidelity rate by almost 38%. And just as well, when that contract of marriage, the responsibility of standing up and saying "I devote myself to you" in front of the eyes of the state and of family, exists, it simply IS more emotionally and physically defining. Marriage used to promote fidelity until people started marrying for the wrong reasons. Just like hundreds of over things, gays can probably do marriage better, at least for a while.
Mic, I do that all the time. Im straight. Its a colorful world, try being apart of it instead of agianst it. Nobodys gonna force you, in fact, these are the least threating people in this world today!!
shoot, my cousin has two husbands...two...one legally and the other she lives with...they all hang out and at the end of the night she chooses what bed she wants...not gay at all!!! so what now...NOt only that but she will quote word for word anything in the Bible...you would praise her if you didnt know her night life.
I guess you were too busy crying over Romney's staggering loss in the last election to notice that three states voted in favor of marriage equality, and a fourth one refused to amend its constitution to ban same-sex marriages. New York legalized same-sex marriages last year without a court ruling requiring it to do so.
The marriage equality states have the lowest divorce rate while bible-babble states like Alabama have the highest divorce rate and teen pregnancy rate.
Could you say that gay marriages last longer because of everything they had to go through to get married? When you fight so hard for something you fight to maintain it most of the time. I have to wonder though after gay marriage is allowed will people take it for granted and forget everything they fought for? Will the divorce rates be lower, or equal, or even higher then the average straight marriage? Only time will tell.
Shorter marriages, orientation means there are choices. What is the famous line? Sexual attraction; can't help themselves from wanting some of the same.
FINALLY MY PARTNERS& MY LOVE WILL BE RATIFIED!! THANK YOU MR OBAMA FOR EILEEN KAGEN!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!! Now you and other Taxpayers can pay for our benefits too!!!
Why are you picking boys? That is very disturbing. What you are saying is marriage is needed for gays so they can recieve entitlements?
Poor kids will be so twisted, and probably sexually abused.....
Given that there is no statistic that suggests that, DAH, maybe you should reconsider that disgusting 21st-century blood libel against your fellow Americans.
Toasty: Why don't you go ask gay men if they like boys. Then you can come back with a statistic that will prove they do. Blood libel? Who is living in the past? I took the liberty to enlighten you on the meaning of the phrase you used. It is not applicable in the context used.
The “blood libel” refers to a centuries-old false allegation that Jews murder
Christians – especially Christian children – to use their blood for ritual purposes,
such ...
Actually, bob, approximately 90% of all pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men (probably a lot like you).
Erinbooby: Just last week didn't you say most child molesters were Preists and Rabbis? You insult people all the time, because your arguments are so weak.
No, boob, I did not say that; I never have said that.
If you are insulted, that's YOUR problem -- and deservedly so.
Yeah Bob, I know the history. Why do you think I used the phrase?
Boob is an insult, point proven. I don't believe I have called you any name in callous way. Why did you use phrase? Gays and Jews don't go together do they? Is that what you are trying to insinuate?
POINT PROVEN. Now go home and whine to your mother, little boy.
That the defamation you just used against sexual minorities is the same sort of evil slander used to justify murdering jews in centuries past. And you have no problem with it, apparently.
Toasted: Are you posting to me? What defamation? How did you reverse your use of Blood Libel, which is Jews murdering Christian children into killing Jews has justification? Drug problem?
Erin: Talking about peoples momma, is bad karma. If you insinuate I am young and vibrant with happy exuberance, I will take that as a compliment.
P.S. There is no such thing as a sexual minority.
Erinbooby is one word. It does not exist so it cannot be perceived as any thing other than non-sensical speech. How many times have you been adamant about your position and proved wrong time and again? In that aspect I have never insulted you, it is your feelings of being persecuted or weakness in spirit that is your Albatross.
Dude, are you really going to go with that? You think that increases your credibility? It just went below zero. Your statement is nonsence and simply an attempt at deception. Try again. You have named called, it's here, it's posted and saying "no I didn't" is only going to make you look foolish. If you're going to make up silly stuff like this, why should we take the rest of what you say with any seriousness?
Never -- and especially NOT by you.
Especially not on the facts you stated before, Erin.
bob, you've been reported for name-manipulation as intended to insult, a violation of the CoH. You obviously have no learned from any suspensions.
Sally: What you do not understand you criticise, to exhalt youself. If you want it to imply something, you have done that yourself. Need to brush-up on your reading comphrension skills also. There is no need for you to put words in my mouth.
Omniscient opinion Erin or is that a fact?
Allswell: Do you stammer much? How is it with all your intelligence you lack knowing the meaning of words? In the original or latin balbus, a off shoot of the Spanish Bobo; or a bird. Then again it depends on what your distorted definition is. P.S. COH? Why haven't you reported actual, blatant insults made by your cohorts?
P.S.S. Like a bird singing the same tune.
and
Now that @!$%# is funny.....
Nope. You have a point much?
Oh, I do. And they know it. But you show little redeeming qualities.
I didn't know we were talking about you again.
Bob, you haven't said anything for anyone to understand. You've simply insulted people. I do understand logical arguments and fallacies. That's what I attack. You are not engaging in any and simply trolling. Most people except the choir will recognize this. What are you hoping to achieve?
that is the standard tactic of the far right nutjobs, attack with personal attacks, claim it means something else, deflect blame, resume the personal attack, then claim to be the victim.
the RWNJs NEVER use logic
I have not insulted anyone, I simply use words some attach their own meaning to. If you believe you participate in intellectual conversation and truth, I will have to use this phrase for the first time. Laugh Out Loud! Logic? Sally, Mark, All, you came barking up this tree. Of course you also have no idea what I'm talking about, so you probaly have no idea what your saying either. P.S. If I am a victim why is there a legion here to bear false witness against me?
Bob, you're trolling
now here comes the phony "I am such a victim" claim.... (rolls eyes)
What I said; to put it simply so that you might comprehend, is I have spoken, you have not heard, because of your inability to grasp common words and speech. It is you who is the victim of a failed education system by having misconstrued content of posts. Understand? I did not seek your council, you sought mine.
Dudette, are you really going to go with that?
Actually I understand quite well. I speak troll.
actually you have, as evidenced by the following posts:
the simple fact that you are not using their given names, and are deliberately misspelling them in a direct address to said individuals, is in fact, a deliberate insult.
erin "booby" regardless of whether or not the term "booby" refers to a breast or a bird.
"toasted" in an implication of drunkenness or other, similar impairment.
your protestations to the contrary are ludicrous.
So ludicrous in fact that they are not even worthy of comment except to point out that it's trolling. The best way to handle it is to point and laugh and let him bury himself.
"I speak Jive."
Factual means there is proof of intent. Neither of it do you have even with your collective brain trust. Semantics are interpretations. It is more you choosing the meaning than I. Toasted: To warm thoroughly, as before a fire. Again erinbooby is not a word. I would enjoy having an intelligent conversation in troll but I don't speak it. However, I have no doubt of you being able to speak it fluently. "Warmly / Singing" might also be what it means. That is a possibility using deductive reasoning of various definitions. Don't assume what you know is always correct. I am delighted to engage in intellectual conversation, if I can find it.
Kindness is better than the harangue drivel I experience on here. Linguistics's is a powerful tool, you really should learn to use it.
DNFTT
That is more your speed Stally, block letters. Should I decipher your tirade for those unaware of your nasty, vulgar language?
I like the Jive email converter.
Never seen that. I was trying to quote part of Airplane, though I better remember it from a sketch in AMV Hell 3 that used Azumanga Daioh.
Yep I remember that :) A long time ago we found an application that you could put a document through and it would convert it to jive. It really livened up those corporate memos.
Hah! I bet it would.
"Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' wan no help, chump don' git no help. Jive-ass dude don' got no brains anyhow."
Damn, Erin knew more of it!
Heh, I loved AMV Hell's take on so many things.
what's so funny is that bob sounds like a failed lawyer trying to make himself feel better by attacking others and using his weak skills to make himself feel better about himself.
Actually it's Orwellian logic.
Inductive reasoning however is a risky form of logical reasoning since the conclusion can as easily be incorrect. George Orwell was a writer of fiction, he made fools of quite a few people on the eve of all saints day in 1938. I see his literary prowess has not diminished with time. I would use a quote from the John Wayne's movie "Big Jake", but I'm afraid you would not be able to handle the implication.
What Orwell demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt is that deception could be achieved through semantics and misrepresentation of the truth. While a writer of fiction his analysis of propaganda was pristine and right on target. He taught us that liars needed to be treated like a virus and a virus has no power unless the cell it infects grants it. Our best defense to an Orwellian statement that tries to twist semantics to fool us into believing a falsehood is to ignore it. We give the statement power by responding to it, thus reproducing the virus. Until you are willing to enter the discussion without trying to infect it with the disease of deception you have no voice.
Orwell certainly had a masterful understanding of human psychology when it comes to falsehoods.
To my knowledge, there has never been an issue of the government forcing a religious institution to preform a wedding that goes against their beliefs. My husband and I were married in a civil ceremony by choice and really couldn't have cared less if a religious group didn't recognize our marriage or not. The real issue is a legal one of civil rights that is being challenged. I see no reason that a same sex couple should be denied the same legal protections that my husband and I were granted when we married.
This issue of a church being required to perform a same-sex marriage is, as you point out, just a red herring. If a church could be required to perform a marriage against its will, wouldn't there have been a lot of court cases involving mixed religion couples that churches refused to marry? It was only a few months ago that a church refused to marry a mixed-race couple. If a church can't be forced to perform a marriage under those circumstances, it certainly can't be required to marry a same-sex couple.
I just wish everyone would quit ruining the word gay and call them what they are. QUEER and FAGGOT both still apply. But this is such a disgusting way of life that they can't stand to be called what they are so they pick out words and give them different meanings.
Don't forget about them uppity NI&&ERS. I will be so happy when rednecks die out due to Darwinism.
Totally agree.
Exactly... just as the Nazis said 'if you tell the same lie often enough people will believe it." Thus homosexual is not homosexual, it is gay. Something that was unacceptable as sexually perverse is no longer sexually perverse, it is now acceptable, not because people voted it as acceptable, but because the courts have said it to be so.. the courts are now making laws, not interpreting them.. that's why the homosexuals funded from CA especially Hollywood are spending millions to bring court cases all over the US into the courts. The same courts that heard Dred Scott years ago are now deciding homosexual marriage instead of the voters. Sad.
If you are truly a professor and that is what your nickname implies, where did you ever get your education? Under the US Constitution, NO CIVIL RIGHT can be denied by a "vote of the majority". That is why we are a republic. And any right that a heterosexual has has to be equally available to a homosexual, including the right to marry. Queer, Fag, Faggot are all derogatory terms, just as Kike, Spic, the "N" word, and any other term applied to an individual to degrade that person. The GLBT community started to use the term "gay" as a positive reflection of our lives. So get with it and get over your hatred of members of the homosexual community. Or are you really a super closeted member too afraid to admit your own homosexuality. Too often the most anti-gay/homosexual individuals are exactly that...a super sexually insecure individual who can't accept the sexuality they were born with. Yes, BORN WITH.
prof, civil rights issues trump the voters, always. Get over it.
Guess you think blacks don't deserve equal right to professor? That the people of Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi should have the right to determine if slavery should still be legal? No group of people should have the right to withhold the rights of others. We are not a Democracy we are a republic. A democracy is mob rules and no one wants that because sooner or later you will be the minority the mob comes after with torches and pitchforks. If you actually are a professor you must a very lousy one.
Not all rednecks are bigots. And bigots aren't just rednecks. Wish for the bigots to die off, not rednecks in general.
Kim,
You must be about 12 years old to use those words. By the way, those words haven't phased me in years. Get some new material, hun.
Here is a new moniker for you, carnally challenged.
Those are OFFENSIVE words, meant to hurt people. Most educated people don't use words like those, and words like retard, the "N" word, etc. It's just a matter of being polite.
Agreed! Prof needs to be shut down by the moderator. Bigots have no place on a vine like this. As for courts deciding issues like this and Dredd Scott, the courts have done so based on the EXISTING laws that don't allow the majority to vote down rights of the minority.
Why are we wasting so much of taxpayer money on this gay crap. There is "NOTHING" NORMAL about being gay. When and only then when two humans of the same sex can concieve a child naturally, will the public accept steers. We need to mave all the gay people to Alaska with Sarah Paeelin and leave the rest of us normal people alone. In fact, AIDS is one of the deadly diseases that is prevelant in gays. Enoguh of this gay crap. Hopefully, the conservative high court will put this insane idea to rest and ban gays, steers and dikes in this country. Go to Canada or Russia or somewhere just get it away from normal americans.
We definitely need to put more money towards education. You are proof of that. In the meantime, educate yourself a little bit and look up the facts about "AIDS."
AIDS according to the most recent CDC report has shown to be on the downturn in the gay community while rising at exponential rates in the straight community. Wrap your head around that one. Wear a condom people.
dmill needs to go back to the mill of the 1800's...oops, he/she is still living in that century thought-wise. When referring to a lesbian it is dykes, not dikes, and how do steers suddenly enter this conversation? There in no such thing as a "normal" American, BTW. We are all "normal", because each human being is an individual. So how do you thus create a "normal" definition for humans, if that is the case? You might want to consider moving you and your family to Iran or one of the other theocracy countries, because that is where your logic seems to reside.
Where did you ever come up with that nonsense JesusismyDog??? Or were you trying to be sarcastic? After over three decades, scientists still do NOT have a definitive answer to where or even WHEN AIDS first occurred. But it may very well have come from the heterosexual African community, not the American gay community.
For all of you who are so opposed to gay marriage --- I have the perfect solution. My solution involves no government action, no new taxes, no new regulation, and it's the perfect small government answer.
So -- if you're opposed to gay marriage -- this is way to handle it
According to harvard, CDC, and Johns hopkins aids timelines, hiv was started with indigenous people in africa eating raw (that means bloody) monkey meat. One lesion in the mouth, or getting the blood under the gums, can cause an infection. Now, even though the person who brought it to the civilized world was an extremely loose French Canadian Bisexual man, the laws of chaos (if you don't know what this is i implore you to look up the terms "fractal" and "double pendulum") say it would have come along eventually.
JesusismyDog! I would love to see some one try to have sex with a monkey. A monkey that big would rip of your arm and beat you to death with it if you tried. Did you ever think that maybe some one skinning a monkey for bush meat cut his hand and got infected that way? No you just fixate on butt sex. Sounds like you have a fixation problem, I wonder why???
I would LOVE to see &$78& is my dog...(sorry, Jesus has no place in that phrase BTW ) have butt sex with a chimpanzee....they LOVE to go for the genitals and face....big teeth too.
JesusismyDog! reported as rereg of JesusismyDog
Not even slightly creative, and indicative of someone with an unhealthy obsession with Newsvine.
He has re-registered numerous times, and every time it is some variation of that screen name, allswell. I'm pretty sure Tyler knows it, and I don't know why he hasn't done anything so far -- I've reported him a couple of times already in THIS incarnation.
Its somewhat telling that every time he reregs, its to spout off something related to sex with animals.
Its very telling.
It can be easy getting caught up in his BS so I just decided to scroll past his respective BS with no relevant cites.
Any steer, why two steers or two dikes CANNOT concieve a child naturally? If you can answer that question I'm in favor of you marrying each other and living productives lives in society around the rest of us normal folks. Until then, you're unnatural.
People who are unnaturally stupid should be banned from contributing to the gene pool.
Gays can't "naturally" contribute to the gene pool! Your point?
Howdy, the point is, on average, gays/lesbians have 8-12 more IQ points than the U.S. average. You sort of WANT them to contribute to the gene pool or at least raise adopted children since they seem to do it just as well as straight parents. No peer-reviewed/vetted study given any credibility has shown children need to be raised in a straight home, just a two parent home. And this is not to say single mothers/fathers have done a bad job, but you have to admit it is much harder for them to do it all between jobbing, cleaning the house, nurturing, etc.
Hey dmill, what about straight couples who are infertile or simply CHOOSE not to reproduce? What about older women who are no longer of child bearing age or men who shoot blanks? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't overwhelm the earth with even more people. What about all the kid in orphanages and foster care? Most came from heterosexual unions. And if it's okay for a hetero couples to use a fertility specialist and surrogates etc to have a child why is it not okay for homosexual couples? Is reproduction the only reason for marriage?
Michelle ... it is interesting how the anti-gay crowd NEVER addresses the issue of infertile heterosexual couples. I guess it is because doing so undermines their ranting.
Gays can certainly contribute to the gene pool. They have children all the time. Whether it is by a means you consider to be "natural" is beside the point, especially since many heterosexual couples don't conceive by "natural" means.
If the "straight people" would stop producing "gay people" same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue. But since Straight people continue to produce gay people... shut the F*ck up about how wrong it is. Christ, y'all are a bunch of bigotted @ssholes!! Get over yourselves.
Gee, William I did, those in SW pay more for taxes than almost any country in the world.. kids take tests in grammar school to determine who goes to college, welfare levels are low due to the lack of illegals, by the way if I had been educated in SW would I have learned that the Swedes gave the Nazis free transit to invade Norway? That the Swedes sold the Germans steel to make weapons? That the Swedes gave credits to the Germans to pay for WWII? You have been reading too many Swedish papers and history books.. try some from America.
1) Average income (after tax) is better in the US, but Norway and Sweden are not far behind
2) Life expectancy - Here USA is behind
3) Access to health care - With no universal health care, and high cost the US is behind
4) Infant mortality -
5) Suicide rates - About equal - higher in males in USA, lower in females. High rates in Norway is a myth!
6) Literacy - Norway is marginally ahead, but all three are on top of the lists
7) Access to higher education - The US has a larger percentage of people with some higher education, but in Norway and Sweden universities are free (paid by tax money). The number of young people that attend universities has increased drastically in the last 20 years in Norway.
8) Crime - The crime rates are higher in the US. The murder rate alone is about 5 times higher
9) Political freedom - Here all countries score high.
10) Social mobility - The "American Dream" that everyone can make it big, is less true than it was decades years ago. Social mobility is less in the US than in Scandinavia.
11) Income distribution - The difference is much larger in the US. In Norway and Sweden even low paying jobs result in a living wage.
If you are among the richest 5%, you will probably have a better quality of life in the US, but for the average man/woman Scandinavia would be a better place to live.
Lets just take that little island in the Bay and send all the degenerates out there and let them have their fun and clean up San Franciosco. And while we are at it send the Nineth District Court of Appeals out there with them. They get plenty of money for their lavish conventions while Americans go without jobs. They can fund the operation.
Remember Rome! And remember he who forgets history is destined to repeat it. As we are about to find out with Hussain Obama's second go around at screwing America up.
With that said let the fudge packing begin!
Obsess much??
Rome failed because it tried to expand a micro sized army less than 1/10th that of the U.S. to completely surround the Mediterranean Sea. They didn't have the money or manpower. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Homosexuality has never contributed to the downfall of a society.
Moral Character does contribute to Everything ... and certain traits are true of most who execute certain actions ...
Rome had to deal with Lead Poisoning.
Texas, then apply that argument to the big financial market (mostly AIG). And you're stereotyping. I know far more monogamous gays than I do straights, and that shouldn't be theoretically possible.
Rome started to fail AFTER it became a Christian nation also. Something to think about all of you christians trying to make the USA a Christian nation.
You have an issue with gays being monogamous? See also, straight men.
Rome started to fail long before it became a Christian nation.
actually roc rome started its decline at the time that christianity took it over. prior to that it was at its strongest.
Nero, Caligula, it was on the way down.
FINALLY MY PARTNERS& MY LOVE WILL BE RATIFIED!! THANK YOU MR OBAMA FOR EILEEN KAGEN!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!! Now you and other Taxpayers can pay for our benefits too!!!
Uh, HG? I hate to break this to you, but the big thing that led to Rome's collapse was the takeover of Christianity.
Toasty, A little more research is in order. Rome was collapsing long before Emperor Constance.
Perhaps you'd like to re-read my sentence, Roc.
Back at ya Toasty, plus reread your history books.
Perversion is just that, perversion.
In the eyes of the beholder. For the far right wing crazies, that just means anything limbaugh, hannity, santorum, o'reilly, and bachmann don't like.
Exactly, and denying a fellow American their due civil rights is really perverted!!
Personally I find it more perverted to complain about two people who have been together 40 years wanting to get married while on wife #3. But in GOP land that guy gets to run for president!
I find basing your life's actions on what your imaginary friend says pretty perverted, but I don't try to deny rights to religious groups.
Extend the same courtesy. Your imaginary friend wants you to be a decent human being. Quit trying to stamp on the rights of your fellow American citizens.
No, perversion is subjective.
What part of being gay is perverse?
Fact > The USA became The Greatest Country for a certain way of acting / way of life and beliefs.
People from all over the world wanted to move here ... they came to us for help every time anyone attacked them ... they came to us for money when they needed it.
Now we have minorities (people & agendas) along with people like Obama and most liberals who want to change Everything that made America Great.
They want there to be no Merry Christmas or Happy Easter .... but it is ok for gays to parade around like fools in parades ... it is ok for 1 anti god person to force 99 who belief to stop their traditions.
They take more and more in Taxes and waste all of it.
They are changing America into One large version of the countries all those people fled for a better life here in America ... There is no where left to go, there is no one to help us ... Obama and The over the top liberal mindset will kill the America Spirit for ever ...
Most gays find pride parades to be way over the top, just saying. And separation of church and state means that, yes, you are forbidden from indoctrinating public school students into your particular brand of religion. And despite the fact december has become "happy holidays," easter is still easter.
First off ... Separation of Church and State had 1 > ONE meaning ... so that their would be NO Offical State Religion as in Church of England.
It never meant separation of God and Country ... there are countless examples of God and Country ....
People love to use the Separation of "CHURCH and state and yet have no idea what it applies to and what the Constitution means.
And again ... EVERYTHING that made America the place everyone wanted to come to ... it being taken down by Obama and the liberal mindset of liberals.op parades and such ... it only hurts your cause so to say ... as any over the top actions of any group does ... yet most gays think because they are gay they are allowed and anyone who doesnt like it ... are anti gay ... you understand the problem here.
And yes I also know not all gays go along with the over the
sorry ... typos from trying to edit
Texas, trying to completely slice a precedent down to the raw nerve shows just how vested you are in this. Since the federal government provides budgets to the state governments and the states fund public schools, you cannot fuse religious worship into school doctrines unless it be through a religious studies class which can serve as an elective only. I'm the only one in my college civics class who got an A, so you may want to rethink your stance on who's the ignorant, misconstruing one here.
Texas, as to "what made america great," it was honesty and integrity in the economy, which now can only be found in small business. Our healthcare system was the best in the world up until our population outgrew it and costs of new technologies and drugs (drugs specifically inflated. Chemistry is not an expensive science) skyrocketed. So now, we must look to other parts of the world who get certain issues like this right. I have always advocated a single payer public option healthcare system paralleling that of Germany, the current world leader in GDP growth. Or, if you want a more comparable population, China (though theirs is far less efficient and has lower quality and has a higher strain due to mass pollution in the cities and rampant smoking). America was only the best until someone got better.
I stated the True meaning of the Church & State .... people love to ignore the real purpose of the Constitution ... still doesnt make it right.
To me God & Religion are 2 separate issues. As Religion is used by humans to best serve their personal agenda ... but fact is ... Separation of Church and State was meant to assure America would never have an offical State Church ... not that God and Country would not exist
What made America great was Capitalism, and putting us first .. while still helping the world ... we were never perfect at this .. but we were the best example of this ... That America is gone and our society will fall and settle at a lower level as ALL / Every Soceity has that has led the world and why > because we are now allowing the same mistakes to be made that they made .... history repeats itself for a reason you know > and that reason is > Human Actions
Actually everything that makes America great is still going on under the Obama administration.
Thank you for being able to make the distinction between a loving god and corrupt religion. However, quantum chaos has mathematically proven a god is unnecessarty to the creation of this universe or the multiverse. Being spiritual can be good for your health, but it has 0 relevance to the running of this country. Praying that things will turn out better is worthless compared to actually working to make them better.
Capitalism worked up until the post-industrial society in which financial vulture capitalism took over, which we all know just from "too big to fail" needs very heavy regulation to keep it from destroying the international financial market. Microcapitalism in the small business area is still alive and well. Socialism as an economic policy is a bad idea. I won't deny that. However, as the rest of lucrative europe and asia have shown us, socialized healthcare is the only way to keep it from being ludicrously expensive while still maintaining the quality.
Patrick93 ... God and Religion are 2 separate issues ... and the fact of what people choose to believe Scince proves is not the issue when one tries to apply Separation of Church and State.
Again > means the Gov can not force A church upon the people or restrict other churches.
Also .. like it or not > The constitution was written with God in mind and thus has relevance to the running of the country > unless you want N Korea or the Soviet Union.
To think it doesnt means you are ignoring the Constitution
Mike475880- You have been smoking to much dope. The Obama administration is destroying this country. I know you think he is GOD but he is not. He may be a nice man but a good POTUS he is not. It's the Democrats that are killing this country and all it stands for. If you don't agree, that is your right as an American but that may even be taken away from you by your GOD.
Texas, not everyone believes in God and you don't have the right to force them to. Some believe in multiple Gods, some believe in one God but not the Jesus was his son thing, others claim no religion, and then there are my personal favorites who claim a religion but don't practice it because it isn't convenient. Open your eyes. America has always been a melting pot and many people still want to come here because it's better then where they were. Greed is whats killing the USA, not gay people. And religious rhetoric isn't going to change a thing.
God as it pertains to the constitution means the overall creator. It does not focus on the judeo-christian-islamic God. And since quantum chaos has mathematically proven a creator is unnecessary for the creation of this/any other universe or the multiverse, I think it's time to fully rewrite the constitution, fix the wording problems in the ammendments, and keep it in simple language instead of legalese currently being used to write even the public versions of laws today.
Sounds like you're a product of the Texas edukashunal system.
You might want to get up to speed with current SCOTUS rulings on Establishment issues, like Torcaso v Watkins, Lemon v Kurtzman, etc.
It's no surprise that you oppose marriage equality because you obviously oppose the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. You sound like a typical Southern Baptist in that regard. Just an FYI, your state is no longer permitted to be a theocracy, nor can it enforce Christian sharia law.
Simply put, government cannot endorse religion over non-religion, nor can it endorse your imaginary friend.
Shrekk is correct . . and I am Happy because FINALLY MY PARTNERS & MY LOVE WILL BE RATIFIED!! THANK YOU MR OBAMA FOR EILEEN KAGEN!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!! Now you and other Taxpayers can pay for our benefits too and screw your prudishness!!!
This is stupid. We are all people gays just have different life styles and beliefs. No reason to degrade these people. I do not agree with their life styles or choices but they are not mine.
Simple solution, marriage is between a man and a woman. Let the gay community come up with a proper term for same sex marraige. There is no doubt they have the rights, this is America. I think the biggest complaint is having the same term used for both. Marraige has been around a very long time and this addition of gays to this term is degrading in itself.
With that said it does not change their rights because of the majority of the population does not want 1 term for both unions of 2 people. I think we forget it is still 2 people no matter what your feelings or opinion is. We have civil unions, we have laws about couples being together for a certain # of years are seen as legally married. I assume that does not apply to gay couples?
Give them the rights with different term meaning gay marriage. We have the miltary reconizing it with marriages at West Point. They should have the right and simple solution would be a different term. Whats wrong with Marrige is between a man and a woman and Same Sex Marriage would be a term for gays. Thats what it is called now, by media and most of America. Even if you dont agree with their life styles it is theirs not yours or the courts. They should not be hindered because of being gay if you agree or not. If you dont go to Middle East wont find it there but have a lot of other issues.
I dont agree with gay life style but I am not gay and they have the rights here in America or should.
No reason for the Supreme Court to get involved. Look at Obama care. The President lied to America to get his agenda thru. As it was called all along by constitution attorneys and scholars a tax. Even constitutional attorneys as the President knew it was. Tax being call mandate does not change the rule or ability of Supreme Court. They just clearified that the President lied to us all.
Then you Mrs. Pelosi what a joke. Where else but America can a politican admit to not doing their job and keep it. As Mrs. Pelosi said we have to pass it to see what is in it. Your job Mrs. Pelosi is to make sure what it is before you vote on it not after because of your blind following of a popular President. It is suposed to be about what is best for America not who is most popular, as in Presidental elections of late.
Robert, marriage has historically up until the 1500s been about property ownership between families. It has always been a civil contract. Religion(christianity) hi jacked in the late 15th century C.E. going into the 16th and made it into a church-regulated idea. And as far as any biblical scholar or historian with an ounce of honesty will tell you, the only thing religion owns is holy matrimony. The civil contract of marriage belongs to the public and to the state. Calling same-sex marriage "marriage" is correct.
And the Supreme Court determined several times that "separate but equal" has never been equal.
All 1400+ laws pertaining to special benefits for "married" couples need to be changed to read exactly what that CIVIL document is...a CIVIL UNION. Get rid of the term "marriage" totally, except for the churches as in Holy Matrimony. Then the stupid heterosexuals can't complain about the abomination of their word "marriage." And as you said Patrick93, until the 15th/16th centuries, "marriage" was exactly a property ownership contract between the families of the two people being "united." That is what the old term "dowry" was all about. The "bride's" family had to present a "dowry" to the "husband's" family to finalize the contract.
Why is it degrading?
Here's a better solution.....why don't you bigots and bible thumpers come up with a name for your unions, and the rest of us will simply use marriage.
Good luck changing the law so that your "holy unions" are recognized by the states, by the feds, and internationally. But at least that'll be your struggle, and the rest of us won't give a crap that your civil rights are denied.
Shrek is correct . . this is really about Money and Government Resources and finally We are Going to Get Our Share!!! Not to mention that MY PARTNERS & MY LOVE WILL BE RATIFIED!! THANK YOU MR OBAMA FOR EILEEN KAGEN!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!! Now you and other Taxpayers can pay for our benefits too!!!
I am an aging gay male - don't care what you call it just give me the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else - nothing more, nothing less. But PLEASE put this issue to rest once and for all - I am sick of it getting brought up and taking up so much time when there are other way more important issues to deal with. Until that happens I am not considered a participant of the United States of America so I am not required to pay taxes or abide by any of it's other laws either.
Texas- Why doesn't he deserve them? Because YOU don't say so?
I would think that, as a Mormon and therefore a 'minority' religion in this country, you would understand a little better what it is like being the only one in a group of people or having your life ridiculed. Apparently not.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, even those who wish to intrude on other people's private lives. However that doesn't give them the right to have their way constantly. If we always put matters of equality to a vote there'd be a good chance that women wouldn't have been able to vote for another half-century, and that we'd still have white-only washrooms in the south.
Texas mormon, who the hell are you to decide whether someone deserves rights or not? How dare you! Jason is completely right...just grant us our full rights as US citizens, the same rights that all citizens enjoy and let's move on. Until then, we will continue to fight for full equality, and that means the same rights and responsibilities that every hetero person enjoys in this country. And if you don't like it, too bad. You don't deserve the right to free speech anyway!
It appears that maybe it's time to resurrect prosecution against the Mormon cult. Starting in Texas.
Sorry, "persecution". I'd really like to grind TexasMormon under my heel.
Agnomad I'll gladly help you, just let me distill some pure capsacin from my ghost chiles so we can apply it topically to his eyes sockets.
Isn't it still legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri? There used to be a bounty on Mormons there under the Mormon Extermination Order, Missouri Executive Order 44.
Are you a Mormon Bounty Hunter Shrekk?? I don't like Mormon's either . . weren't they trying to do those Gay Conversions?? But Ha, Ha, the last laugh is on them!!
Their tax dollars are going to be PAYING FOR ME AND MY PARTNER, I.e. SPOUSE!!!
In the State of Iowa a marriage license is defined as a contract---this in both statutory law and as in all states by case law involving the rights and obligations incurred in marriage and its dissolution. Thus so, it is difficult to see how the Supreme Court of the United States is going to allow state governments to do what the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1 prohibits. It states (my capitalization affixed):
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, OR LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
While there's a public policy exception to Full Faith & Credit (and thus DOMA section 2 is constitutional even though section 3 is obviously not), the point you're raising is why there will soon be marriage equality nationwide even if SCOTUS doesn't extend marriage equality nationwide.
The legal problems which result from a failure to recognize another state's contracts will cause the bigoted states to change their laws before long. This is already happening in regards to gay adoption rights and marital property rights, even in places like Texas and Louisiana.
Shrekk is Absolutely right!! The next thing my Partner and I expect to be fighting for is SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVOR BENEFITS, and various other taxpayer funded programs.
We are Ready. Obama has put our man (or woman) on the court and WE ARE IN!!!You tell'em Shrekk!!
Legal marrige is the biggest crock on this planet! Is there a state that doesen't require one of the person's to buy a marrige LICENSE! You are paying a tax for the privilidge of having SEX. I'm with the first poster,let them marry and be as MISERABLE as the rest of us!
Hello Craigslist!!!!
I am gay and not miserable, so if I were married, I would not be miserable. If you are in a marriage that is miserable, that is your own fault- perhaps you made a bad decision. I as a gay woman, I will take time (straights pay attention) and really get to KNOW the person, experience all kinds of circumstances (ups and downs) and THEN decide. Straights that marry quickly amaze me. Perhaps that is why the divorce rate is so high...TAKE YOUR TIME PEOPLE!!!! Love you all, but be wise.
H3321278
C'mon, let's be completely honest. I have LOTS of lesbian friends that commit to each other after ten minutes of conversation. My friend Cristina even tells a joke:
"What does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-haul!"
That doesn't mean you don't deserve the same rights and access to American secular law as any other citizen. Just don't try to portray that anyone is better than anyone else. We're all human, and thus imperfect.
You might have an argument there, except that there is no law that says you have to be married in order to have sex, much to Santorum's disappointment.
Strange, I've had sex without a marriage license.
FYI, marriage is about property and kinship rights. It's not a license to have sex.
I agree Barry and Shrekk . . I never needed a license for Sex either. It is about my Sons!!!
(Barry . . . we should have coffee sometime!! We are both very liberal!)
Mudderfly: gays can have children and I know several who do, so you are wrong. I am not here to educate the ignorant, however I will say as a gay woman, I do not want to get married- BUT I want equal rights for my gay brothers and sisters....it is vile that as humans, tax payers and citizens we are denied rights. Even if I were straight I would not want to get married-it is outdated...However, it should be available to ALL!!!!!
jesus: lol, the whites tried that "you have the same right as anyone you can marry someone from your same race" logic and that got thrown out in loving vs virginia. It was lame then, and its lame now. :)
clue for the clueless: marriage is "defined" however the law defines it. Try to pay attention. :)
Jesus I hate to shatter your pretty glass house, but the legal definition of marriage does not contain the words man or woman even once in all its 61 pages (yikes). And since all scientific evidence so far has shown gays don't have a choice in their attractions to other consenting adults, locking marriage away into a 1 man 1 woman relationship does infringe on their rights to pursuit of happiness and also infringes on those couples in legalized states where DOMA forces the federal government to not recognize their unions and tax them as much as 3500 dollars more per year than their straight counterparts, not to mention hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, and estate rights.
See my definition post above. I repeat, make ALL "marriage licenses" and all 1400+ plus related laws read "CIVIL UNION", which is what that "license" really is...a civli union contract. Let it apply to any two people who want to enter into a government licensed relationship. After all, that document is just another way for the local/state government to make more money from taxes/fees.
It is only disgusting in the eye of the beholder. For some of us, it is just as beautiful of a behavior as what the heterosexual community exhibits...and in many ways MUCH better. The behavior of many heterosexuals is atrocious at times. Mardi Gras/Carnival/Carnivale is a very good example of that.
Jesusismydog, and what are you going to do when the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA as unconstitutional?
BTW, Webster's has changed its definition of "marriage" to include gay marriage. Ha.
oh wow, thank you for pointing that out misscreant. that must be the 2011 or 2012 definition. the oldest one I have is 2009.
Actually, if you look it up online, Webster's definition of marriage includes same-sex marriage. As for five year old kids ... they'll repeat whatever rhetoric they've been taught by hateful adults. Luckily, they don't make laws.
@anti
lol i can tell you have never been to madi gras. their are just as many heterosexuals showing tits and penis if not more at madi gras then gays.
Eric . . I dont like you talking like that, especially around my adopted SONS!!! This is about FAMILIES!!! FINALLY MY PARTNERS& MY LOVE WILL BE RATIFIED!! THANK YOU MR OBAMA FOR EILEEN KAGEN!!
My partner and I are currently adopting our 2nd Son and we Need to get Married in order to qualify for partner benefits.
Also, there are many taxpayer funded benefits that we need as a Family!! THIS IS A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!! THE GREATEST!!! Now you and other Taxpayers can pay for our benefits too!!!
Poor kids.........
Oh, one more thing, It cost $25.00 for the license here, Try getting out of a marrige for that price! Does anybody see anything wrong with this scenerio! Why have legal marriges gone down? Divorce aint nearly as cheap as getting married!
Divorce is part of marital law, arguably the most important part. It's one big thing that has been denied to gays, the right to an orderly distribution of property.
Correct again Shrekk (you're not really Eileen Kagen are you?). . I had to fight 2 of my Exes over My Dining Room Table!!! My new partner and I have a Pre-Nup . . For when we get married!!!
I don't agree with courts telling us what we can and can't do when the people have already decided themselves. In Mass we had 6 judges tell us what we are to think/believe re marriage. In Ca it was the same but the people there voted to overturn them - their right and it should stand. Same with the Supreme Court - they shouldn't be able to tell states that have already passed legislation one way or the other that it must be changed.. This is a country of the people and for the people - not a land ruled by judges (how ever many few) - if we wanted an oligarchy we would have set up one up from the start. A democracy is 'rule of the people' - and if that means the will of the many vs the will of the few then that's how it is - anything else flies directly in the face and intent of our Constitution.
actually, its a country ruled by the constitution, and judges have the exact constitutional requirement to override law (whether passed by the people or the legislature) that contradicts rights.
We aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Obviously you don't understand the fundamental basis of our country.
This is backwards generation and God is the judge of us all. I am a sinner and I have failed God in many ways. I am not casting stones, but I am saying sin no more. Marriage contracts in the Kingdom of God is only set for a man and his wife or wives (polygny). The government is not lined up with God and that will mean the government will fail. We must repent from this wickedness and seek the Thoughts of God to save use from being carnal or fleshy minded. God is thinking, so PAY attention or pay later. We are lesser gods born into flesh, but our flesh will not always exist. Save yourself from this perverse generation. The people of the Earth are building up a tower called Babel and God will have to humble the fleshy minded once again.
Your and my God see things totally different.
according to biblical text, marriage doesn't exist in heaven, go figure.
there is to a marriage in heaven according to the Holy Bible....
Why is this even an issue it should have never been signed into law the first place. It is just another awful example of government sticking their noses in where it dose not belong again.
Jesus, he's referring to DOMA you twit. Jesus, any parent with a sense of morals who knows this gay man would easily let him watch their 5 year old boy. Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely separate issues. Male pedophiles who rape little boys can't be aroused by suggestive imagery of men ages 20 to 30. Pedophilia specifically focuses on innocence and lack of body hair, leading to a perception that the child is pure and without gender. Pedophiles pick a poison and stick with it once they have a method which works to lure children in. Homosexuals =/= pedophiles and you should be ashamed of even insinuating that.
Hey Jesus, I couldn't give less of a @!$%# what you approve of.
Jesus, you need to look up the legal definition of marriage instead of webster's. The legal definition of marriage is over 60 pages long.
=============================================
Homosexuality and pedophelia are NOT completely separate issues. They are different, but they are BOTH "sexuallly aberrant behaviors that are widely considered immoral". BOTH would like greater acceptance. Remember, Mohammed married a wife at nine years old (yes, 9) We can't "impose our morality" upon Muslims now, can we ?
==============================================
hmm leave my 5 year old boy with a gay man or leave my 5 year old boy with a Catholic Priest?, i will take my chances with the gay man any day of the week over the Catholic Priest. Gay man > Pedophile
motoriker, please explain WHY pedophilia is not separable from homosexuality. And would you mind citing where you get your quotes. Aberrant, like most qualities is in the eye of the beholder. Jesus, the federal definition of marriage doesn't contain the word man or woman once. DOMA simply limited that definition. The actual definition has not changed once. Go look it up.
Apparently, you reasoning ability is very limited, so assuming you are serious, I will explain: Pedophilia IS separable from homosexuality. They are DIFFERENT. But even though they are different, they share some commonality: sexual aberrations.
As you say "aberrant is in the eye of the beholder". So how can YOU claim homosexuality is a "right" yet deny those same rights to pedophiles ? It seems rather "judgemental" and even "hateful" for you to "impose your morality" upon pedophiles.
You claim "Jesusismydog" as your monicker. I wonder how he'd feel about that post full of virtually NO TRUTH whatsoever?
I think you're posting from jail. Probably from under a Bubba. Bitter much?
Jeezus is posting a screed that is found on a number of anti-gay hate group sites and bible-thumpoer sites, like Mass Resistance, Lifesitenews, etc.
Ironic that Jeezus has elsewhere claimed that he's not a bible thumper. He just acts like one and gets all his ignorance from bible-babble sites.
Also note that he's a re-registration of a banned user.
Please don't feed the troll... report it and move on.