E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Photo courtesy Tracy Johnson
Donna Johnson, left, and Tracy Johnson at their home in Raeford, N.C., in 2012.
When her spouse was killed in Afghanistan, Tracy Johnson drove across town to her mother-in-law’s house — clutching her marriage certificate — so she could hear the Army’s formal notification. No one from the military came to her door.
She later watched as the American flag that cloaked the coffin of her spouse, Donna Johnson, was offered, not to her, but to Donna Johnson’s mother – the next of kin, as U.S. law stipulates. She was denied death benefits, she said, that are standard issue to heterosexual spouses of service members who die in action: free health care, tuition assistance, and monthly indemnity compensation of about $1,200.
And then there was the ring. On Valentine’s Day 2012, Tracy Johnson placed that band on her wife's finger during their marriage ceremony in Washington, D.C. Last October, as Johnson escorted her wife's body home from Dover Air Force Base, the Army asked Johnson to carry the wedding ring, designated as a “personal effect.” After arriving in Fayetteville, N.C., Johnson was obliged, by a federal statute, to deliver the ring to an Army officer who then provided it to Donna Johnson’s mother who, in turn, gave it back to Tracy Johnson. She wears it on her finger today.
“I’m not considered ‘family’ (by the military). I’m not considered a spouse and I’m damn sure not considered a widow, by definition,” said Johnson, an Army National Guard staff sergeant who served in Iraq. “We didn’t marry for any of those benefits. We married out of love.
“And I’m not standing up here, whining: ‘Woe is me.’ We were adults, big girls, and we knew what we were getting ourselves into. But it doesn’t mean I have to stand idly by and see all this happen to somebody else who’s in a same-sex marriage (in the military).”
Johnson's experiences were mandated by the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The 1996 law — followed by the Department of Defense and all federal agencies — bars same-sex military spouses from benefits made available to the heterosexual spouses of service members: dental and medical insurance, discounted military housing, and military ID cards, which allow spouses to visit on-base commissaries, child-care facilities and movie theaters.
Under DOMA, military leaders were not allowed to officially acknowledge Johnson, who believes she may be the first same-sex spouse to lose a partner to combat following the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) — the policy that kept gays from openly serving in the armed forces. (Donna Johnson’s mother specifically asked Tracy Johnson to accompany the body home, allowing her a seat on the plane.) The only federal employee who openly referred to the dead soldier as Johnson's “wife,” was President Barack Obama, who sent Johnson a letter of condolence, she said.
On Thursday, Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, told congressional members during a confirmation hearing that he is "fully committed ... to doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."
Furthermore, during his inauguration address on Jan. 21, Obama spoke broadly of gay rights, saying: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."
Battle for equality
For now, current law stipulates that, following the military death of a same-sex spouse, the branches first must notify the “primary next-of-kin” — in Donna Johnson’s case, her parents. If U.S. troops list a same-sex spouse on their emergency-contact forms, that spouse eventually will receive word from the military — after the blood family is told.
“It is not like, though, it’s a day or 'x' number of weeks later. It would be almost immediately,” said Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. “They (branch officers) would talk to primary next-of-kin first and relay the information. And then, whoever the (other designated person is), they would call them very soon thereafter. So we’re talking minutes or hours as opposed to days, weeks or months.
“DOMA is still the law we uphold. Even though that (DADT) repeal has been taken care of, there are certain benefits that are not applicable across the force,” Christensen added.
But pressure is mounting on the Pentagon and the White House to change that notification policy — and the other gaps in same-sex spousal benefits — by writing an executive order or a DOD-wide regulation.
Same-sex advocacy groups described the Jan. 25 electionof same-sex wife Ashley Broadway as Fort Bragg’s 2013 “spouse of the year” as a mandate to the military to figure out a way to override DOMA. That same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama is contemplating how benefits could be administratively extended to the spouses of gay service members, the Washington Blade reported.
'Just like all the other Army wives'
“No military spouse should have to hear second-hand that something has happened to their service member,” said Stephen Peters, president of the American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a Washington, D.C.-based support network for lesbian and gay military families.
"No military spouse should have to watch the flag that is draped over the coffin of his or her service member folded and handed to anyone else,” added Peters, whose husband, Marine Corps Maj. Alasdair Mackay, returned safely in January from a one-year deployment to Afghanistan. “Our families live through the daily fear of worrying about having something happen to their service member while they’re deployed. But we do it without access to the same supports and benefits that other military families get. Our service members, they go to war for our country for equality, yet their families are treated as if they aren’t important, as if they are somehow second class.”
Courtesy of Stephen Peters
Marine Corps Maj. Alasdair Mackay and Stephen Peters were married in New York City during Christmas 2011 before Mackay deployed to Afghanistan.
The AMPA asserts that Tracy Johnson was the first — and only, to date — same-sex spouse to lose a military wife or husband in combat. It's possible, however, that another same-sex spouse suffered that type of tragedy before DADT was rescinded and when members were not open about their sexual orientation — even if they were legally married.
Tracy Johnson was not listed on the emergency notification form that service members fill out, she said. Because DADT had been revoked, Donna Johnson assumed that Tracy would receive the same benefits that are granted to all military spouses — for example, being the first person to be notified by the military should a wife or husband die in combat, Johnson said.
"Donna didn't even realize she had to put me down. She thought I was automatically extended that benefit as her wife — just like all the other Army wives who are the first ones to notified," she said.
'What's right is right'
The point is moot — even if Tracy Johnson was listed, due to DOMA she still would not have been the first person that military officials would have visited in the hours after Donna Johnson was killed.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA.
Near Fort Bragg, N.C., Johnson holds tight to a fine philosophical line — honoring her wife and the Army while questioning the law. She describes how individual Army members privately treated her “with respect and compassion”, giving her an American flag — though not the same flag atop the coffin — during a private ceremony before Donna Johnson’s funeral. She lauds Donna Johnson’s family for supporting her, insisting that she sit with them in the front row during the memorial service.
But Donna Johnson’s mother, Sandra, is not so charitable with her summary of the events.
“Tracy’s unit supports her, her family supports her, and she was given support by the community itself. Why can’t the federal family be supportive?” Sandra Johnson asked. “I know: It’s the law. But what’s fair is fair. What’s right is right.
“The family is already going through grief. You don’t keep putting a knife in the wound and make it deeper. She’s dead, she’s gone, she can’t be brought back. So why are you treating this family, and treating Tracy, with this indignation?”
Related: Spouses club relents, says lesbian Army wife can be 'full member'
Leave a Comment:
Vermontguy, why do you feel the need to change something (marriage.) What is wrong with calling it something else. It IS something else. It is a different union. Calling it a "civil union" or something other name should not be wrong. It would still be recognized with all the benefits.
from a legal viewpoint, I don't think it is different, so it should be called the same.
YOUR marriage wouldn't change one bit if others were allowed to marry. We heard the same arguments for allowing..gasp...mixed race couples to marry.
"separate but equal' doesn't work well, as history shows. "real" marriage would always be "more equal" than civil unions.
Marriage has changed definitions numerous times in history--yet the word remains the same.
It will change again with gays yet the institution and the word will do just fine.
Calling it "something else" reeks of "separate but equal."
It was unconstitutional in Brown vs. the Board of Education, and it's unconstitutional now.
But it is different in terms of what marriage has always been viewed. I realize that marriage between a man and a woman (MY marriage) would not change. That is not the point. Why do so many things need to be changed to fit a group ( and I am not just referring to gay issues.) Why would a civil union be less equal?
well, yes "change happens". if not, we'd all be slaves and peasants under kings. Change should happen when it is better, and I think equal rights for all law abiding americans is a good change.
Why were the "black drinking fountains" less equal? Its human nature to continue bigotry unless directly forced to change.
I am not against "change." "Change" is recognizing that people of same-sex want to be married and have legal rights. The "black drinking fountain" was wrong and horrible. The marriage between a man and a woman is not wrong or horrible. And I am not saying it is wrong or horrible for same sex to be married. But they are two seperate beliefs.
I think excluding gays from marriage is wrong and should be changed, and I don't see any logical or legal reason why it can't be called marriage.
If people who oppose it want a different word for legal, secular marriage, they can adopt a different word.
But why "us"? Why should we, who have always used the word "marriage" to mean one thing, change it for others with a different belief?
Char
and now you have the same questions that people used to try to deny mixed-race marriages
then why don't you make up your own word for gay marriage like how the racists made up "miscegenation" to refer to interracial marriage?
as long as gay marriage is already universally understood to mean two gays marrying each other, and not, say, a gay man deciding to marry a woman, then the term marriage is already applicable to gays.
But it is not what has always been defined as marriage. Sorry guys, I cannot agree. That is the difficulty. One cannot always change things.
Marriage has been defined in many ways throughout history. In biblical times, it was one man and many women. Only in the 19th century did the whole concept of a love marriage come into being.
Trying to come up for different words to mean different types of marriage is ridiculous, of course It makes it seem that marriage is something only for white straight people.
Marriage is marriage.
Char-
You only think white only drinking fountains were wrong and horrible because we're in 2013. In the 1950's they were thought of as proper.
People now may think that gay marriage is wrong and horrible. In time (and currently in 9 states), people will realize that it's the only choice to convey equality.
Char
you DO realize how many times the definition of marriage has changed right ? at one time only people of the same religion could marry one another. at one time only people of the same race could marry one another. at one time people could only be married IF the bride's father gave consent. at one time people could only marry IF the local religious leader gave consent. and the list goes on.
none of these apply today, people of different religions can (and do) marry, people of different races can (and do) marry, people get married without the bride's father's consent, people get married without ANY religious leader's consent, people get married who AREN'T religious !
so obviously we've changed the definition of marriage QUITE a few times already.. look it up.
White, straight people? It has never been defined that way. Yes, biblical times may have been with more than one wife (and in some case today, too.) But it has always been defined as between a man and a woman. And yes, it did become a "love" marriage in the 19th Century vs. the marriage for property, money, etc. that was earlier. But, it was between a man and a woman. It IS different. I know that is hard for gay people. They love too. But it is different than what has always been defined as marriage. I don't think it is ridiculous to have different titles. If it is something that helps sides and both get equal rights, then I don't get the argument. If it is something that bothers so many people that have always had it a certain way, why argue and push it so hard. I believe people would be so much more accepting.
Phoenyx - Yep, it has changed many, many times. Between a man and a woman.
Char
oh that's true.. of course about 75 years ago you could have said "yep, it has changed many, many times. Between a white man and a white woman." why didn't we just keep it that way ?
do you get it yet ? i'm guessing the concept still escapes you *sigh*
When you get condescending, people don't want to agree or try and understand. I am trying, believe me. People of different races have married for years around the world. The concept does not escape me, sir. Do you understand that marriage has always been between a man and a woman because we procreate. Do YOU get it? I am not saying people should not love each other no matter what their sexual preference OR that they should not get equal rights. But once again, marriage has been between a man and a woman.
Bart Conner,
"You only think white only drinking fountains were wrong and horrible because we're in 2013. In the 1950's they were thought of as proper."
Right. But only from the white person's view point, not the black.
Char
i do apologize for being condescending towards you, i shall try not to
yes, maybe around the world it has been longer, that i do not know for sure, in the USA it has only been for 50-60 years.
nope. procreation is not a requirement for marriage nor is the reason why people get married. if you are suggesting that then all elderly couples cannot be married (no procreation), all infertile couples cannot be married (no procreation) and all couples who willfully choose not to have children cannot be married. are you denying all those couples their rights for marriage based on procreation ? the courthouse doesn't ask about anything concerning procreation, neither does the federal government when you get married. i could be wrong on this, but i don't know of any religious leaders who ask you if you are procreating when you decide to get married. procreation has NOTHING to do with it.
also given the fact that many married couples procreate OUTSIDE of their marriage, how do you handle all of that ?
so i'm wondering if you get it or not ? you haven't presented any legitimate reasons yet to keep it as man and woman... just like there was no legitimate reasons to keep it as white man and white woman or christian man and christian woman etc..
I understand much of what you are saying. I guess my point of all this is that some want to change the institution of what we have always known as marriage. Why does it need to be changed by those that have a different belief? YOu can still have a union of love with the same benefits but why try and change what many don't want changed?
Char
and we come back full circle to allowing black people to marry white people. it was always the belief before that different races marrying each other was wrong. it was a different belief that a black person and a white person could marry, why did the definition of marriage need to be changed by those who held that belief ? black people and white people could still have a union of love with the same benefits but why did they change what many didn't want changed ? they even used the bible as a back up to condone that God didn't want white people and black people to marry, that God wanted all races to stay separate..
many, many people didn't want the definition of marriage to be changed to allow mixed-race marriages and there are STILL many people who don't accept mixed-race marriages, but the law now allows for it to happen whether people accept it or not, whether they like it or not. people who wanted mixed-race marriages weren't looking for acceptance, just equal treatment under the law. its the same thing with homosexuals.
the same tired arguments of "its against my religion", "its wrong, God said its wrong" etc etc etc were used before and found to be null and void in a court of law. your god (or anyone's god) doesn't make our laws, they are secular. gay people don't care if you accept them, they want equal treatment under the law.. they also don't want to be discriminated against.. it was the same case with black people who were being discriminated against (including the BSA) and weren't treated equally under the law.
do you get it now ?
Mine is not a religious belief and I don't even think anything of people of different color marrying when they are man and woman. I wonder what our world will be like in 50, 100 years? I hope we still carry on....
Char
so you have no racial discrimination, you obviously formed that belief or were taught that throughout life to not discriminate based upon race. i give you credit for that. now why can't you apply that to gender ?
i do too
why wouldn't we ? just because homosexuals may be legally allowed to be married one day on a federal level doesn't change how we carry on as a species and its silly to think that it would change things. procreation will still happen and the species will carry on. what would stop it ?
Didn't mean that! Just meaning life in general. Thanks for the dialogue. You are a smart guy and have great points of view. Best to you.
myname
incorrect. that point is valid. if you want to say that the reason for marriage IS procreation then you MUST examine ALL marriages. this includes elderly couples who decide to get married later on in life, they would not be able to procreate so their marriage would not be legal. it also would include couples where one or both parties are infertile for any reason, they would not be able to procreate and this also includes couples who wish to not have children - they refuse to procreate. based on the argument that a homosexual marriage can't happen due to lack of procreation - those sets of heterosexual couples should immediately have their marriage rights revoked based on the same argument.
just because this argument didn't go the way you wanted and does exclude heterosexuals as well, you wish to state its not an honest discussion and pout. i'm sorry for your luck.
maybe next time those who are opposed to homosexual marriage will try a better argument, or just admit there is no logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry other than their religion (which has no basis for our secular laws) or the fact they think its "icky" (which has no legal basis).
next ?
Char,
thank you for the discussion, i appreciate it and i wish you the best as well.
(and i think in general, we'll all be fine and still carry on)
Unless I missed something, the article does not say what caused her death. Was it a accident, natural causes, infection/disease, etc. or a result of enemy action?
I see in the VFW magazine Feb 2013, she is listed as a Death to enemy action between Sep 6 and Dec 3, 2012 and was assigned to 514th MP Co. 60th Troop Command, Army National Guard, Raeford, North Carolina.
Of the 41 killed during this period, 35 Army and 6 Marines, none had Middle Eastern first or last names which could mean of the 3,000,000 or so muslims living in the USA they are told not to serve by their Imans in their local mosques.
None of them had Russian last names either. They must be getting the same message from their Russian churches.
None of them had South African last names. They must be getting the same message from their South African Churches.
None of them had French last names. They must be getting the same message...
How come the American churches aren't telling the poor guys not to join?
Children are the most neglected by the United States military insofar as child support or outright negligence over years which remains not properly compensated for in divorces or inheritance of estates in military families.
To continue to overlook this offense but swing the door open wide to everyone else is deliberate to distract from the negligence.
I object to this because children should come first with the US military that has a commitment to take matters by priority.
That means the children of families whose parents served but were neglected in child support and the military failed to order that parent to pay child support while they served.
Dead beat dads and moms that were permitted to flee, join the military or take a deployment overseas, and escape the responsibility of child support should be top priority over matters such as this where these adults can fend for themselves.
Not accurate. The military will discover recruits who are delinquent in child support and mandate that they have their pay docked and that money be sent to the State (& supporting parent) that requests it. I speak from specific experience. Our son's deadbeat dad disappeared for 10 years; then, he joined the Army & whoops - he was caught and had to pay back support. That never would have happened if the Army didn't make it happen.
So there it is, Money Money Money. the real agenda behind gay "marriage" Military benefits, Social security benefits, disability benefits, We opened a can of worms, didn't we.
Equality in all things, that would include all the benefits you yourself currently enjoy.
Money, money, money - indeed.
People opposed to the "gays" are content to fight the good fight by denying things like medical benefits and forcing higher tax rates. Do you really think that will stop the "perversions" that you're so concerned about?
Money--and now we understand what any marriage, gay or straight, is really about.
You'll understand when you try to get divorced.
Its never going to end. Soon they will all be treated as equals in addition to receving special protection under the laws of this land. Its liking having that little brat brother your mom made you always take with you when you were going with friends. Annoying as hell and nobody wanted him with, but god forbid he didnt get his way!
Lets look at the facts, homosexuality is a fetish, immoral and against the law, no matter how it's played out, it is wrong. Gay marraige is like acting, pretending to have something that is not, and I am not going to allow my tax dollar wasted on filth. I liked it better when Obonzo was the "trunk monkey", and that was good acting, should have stayed with car commericals, not run for president. It is all about getting and corrupting our youth, sick perversion with our children, if you can't figure that the agenda is exactly that, then you are to far gone.
This is the sort of thing I would expect from someone raised in a cave by a religious zealot. Every word of it nonsense. Homosexuality doesn't corrupt anything - it's as old as humanity & I never caught it, or was victimized by it; and my children couldn't care less about a person's sexual orientation. Hate and racism are immoral. Persecuting people who are different than you, or do not share you god concept is really immoral. Maybe an intense immorality is part of your morality.
Jesus would roll his eyes at your BS.
It doesn't matter is jugger thinks it's wrong. The military does not so it must treat all people the same.
Gay is cureable.
Just treat with homophobia and persecution. Even if it isn't 'cured', it'll sure hide; and that's ok. "Out of sight, out of mind," the motto of denial.
I guess that means straight is curable too.
I know stupidity is, it is called EDUCATION!!
Correction: Ignorance is curable. Stupid just is - like hetero & homosexuality.
Juggernaut is trolling for the punchline for a disgusting, vile (non) "joke". Don't take the bait.
If the deceased soldier had filled out the "next of kin" paperwork correctly there would probably be no story here.
Straight couples don't get unrecognized if they filled out the next of kin incorrectly.
What's right is right. You're married--you get recognized as the surviving spouse when your military spouse dies.
Marriage has ALWAYS been a states-rights issue. DOMA is utterly unconstitutional--and NOT ONE federal court has upheld it. The Supreme Court is next.
It'll happen. Rome wasn't built in a day. Things are moving rapidly, for a government; they are moving at warp speed, for a military. Patience...
I don't understand, husband and wife equals, man and woman. It is not calculated anyother way. Just because we end up with high ranking judges, generals, and other professionals, and Catholic priest, and other who are gay, doesn't mean that it is right. Just because our government is full to the till with gay's don't make it right. The rape of our youth is what makes it wrong, and no politician or government law is going to convince me otherwise. It is about the children, seduce them into the gay mind set is satanical, against the natural order of laws that govern the universe. AIDS was the way in which the natural order attempted, and still will punish those who are immoral. It will mutate, and great sickness will address those in indulge and tolerate those who are immoral. The Earth has a way of ridding itself of pestalence, only once the evil behavior cease. Gay think that they are normal, not in any case normal, and they want us to say they are normal but they know in their hearts that they are involved in a powerfully evil fetish, so intoxicating that they can't pull away, the are addicted to this abomination. Since we are now speaking of Obama, it is so very shameful that any person on the level in which he sit representing a nation would condone this mentality. I believe there is a great, direct attempt to devide, seperate the nation into pockets of desention. Divide and conquer, conquer and divide, destroy a nation.
Most self serving stupid post to date.
Congratulations!!
Juggernaut is the perfect example so someone so filled with hatred that he can only be a closet case himself.
Homosexuality is NOT a disease or a perversion that will automatically corrupt whatever a homosexual creature comes into contact with. There are many, many examples of homosexual behaviors in NATURE. There are gay animals. Quit freaking out - it's not like the flu; but definitely wash your hands anyway.
The Biblical references to 'pestilence' are certainly over the top. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there are many gay people in societies, because there are many gay people in the world?
Your homophobia is deep. Seek help. Maybe if you can help yourself, you could figure a way to contribute to progress and peace. Beating people over their heads with your bible doesn't help anything.
I wish the gays and blacks, and the socialist democrats stop trying to push your beliefs on me. You beleive the way you want, and I will beleive the way I want, if your are respectful to me, I will be respectful to you, you continue to throw your beliefs in my face, I promise I will never support your cause, and to be honest, the only one who cares about the gays, the blacks, the hispanics, the rich, the poor, will only support your cause is if you vote for them. so wake up, realized you are on your own, and after you vote, you are again on your own till next voting season. how stupid can anyone really be.
Yeah, don't you hate it that blacks wanted to get married to each other but the US would not allow it when there was slavery.
Blacks and their terrible marriage agenda!
this is just some BS.
I really do not give a sh*t.
Just deny everyone these benefits, gay, straight, no matter. Fair is fair, after all, right?
That would be fine too. Good luck convincing the straight population to give up their benefits.
Tracy: I am so sorry for your loss. God bless you for your openness. I pray that your efforts to recognize all military spouses is realized and the DOMA is relegated to the dustbin of history.
I am sooo tired of ugly fat lesbians trying to convince me of their lifestyle..............I just get a visual in my head of what they do and I want to puke. And obviously she is out for the money, if you "married" for love, nobody would be chasing the money. Lesbians and their freakish clothes and haircuts annoy me.
Canceled Check: Thank you for proving that ignorance and intolerance are alive and well in the United States! She isn't chasing anything, she's fighting for a right that should be given to all married couples. Same Sex Marriage is about equality, which is specifically stated in the Constitution to be a right to all. I'm a lesbian who is of average weight, has a cute haircut and my clothes are not freakish. In fact, I might even sit next to you at work. That's right, we come in all shapes and sizes. Kind of like straight people! And likewise, you annoy me as well.
Right, straight spouses NEVER go after benefits after marrying someone they love. duh.
I'm so tired of hateful homophobic bigots whining. :)
Mandy Verb,
If you ever want to switch teams...
Just kidding. Cancelled Check is so wrong. Either trolling or just plain ignorant. Nice job.
The genie is now out of the bottle. Good luck!
which genie? which bottle?
You mean the genie is out of the closet.
There is no such thing as a "lesbian widow". The two could have been best friends, but two women cannot get married. Everybody knows that.
I'm sorry you are ignorant of how gay marriage is now legal in a number of states. :) (and coming soon to a state near you!)
Please. You're scaring me.
scared of more freedom and equal rights? that's odd. Maybe you are in the wrong country?
kevin seemed to be making a general statement about marriage, so I answered in general as well.
Kevin bunch o numbers said "The two could have been best friends, but two women cannot get married. Everybody knows that."
Well the millions of people in Washington state certainly are part of "everybody" and for the last 2 months there have been hundreds of weddings with two brides (and two grooms too) Or as we designate here "Spouse A" and "Spouse B". I've had teh pleasure of attending two already and have three more on my calendar. So... since two women CAN get married... and millions of people DO know that... I guess the only conclusion is that you are very much misinformed and your views are in error.
@at vermontguy....I guarantee it will not come to my state, Oklahoma!! HAH!
Jamie, as soon as SCOTUS rules that DOMA is unconstitutional in June, it will, by virtue of the 14th amendment come to Oklahoma... and all other states and territories under the jursitiction on the Constitution of the United States.
.
This woman's wife died in service of her country. She died serving us and defending our freedoms, and yet we do not allow her widow the same respect we would if it had been a widower.
Shame on the US for not treating the spouses of all our heros the same.
May all of our troops no matter who they love come home safe.
Hugs
I believe MSN enjoys putting these "stories" on their page...and seeing all the folks rant and rave like three-year-old children.
Holy crap MSN is really stepping up their agenda driven reporting to promote homosexuality and gun control. MSN's new mantra, "truth and fair reporting be damned, we've got an agenda to push!"
what is a lie or unfair in this news story?
First and foremost, these women are NOT "MARRIED!" They are deceived. Marriage is a uniquecovenant and union between a man and a woman, not members of the same gender as that constitute a perversion. There can never ever be any such thing as "marriage equality" when it comes toGod's divine institution of marriage and the family as homosexual couples are clearly not equal with heterosexual couples! Yes, I know some of you will take offence to my beliefs, but I am totally confident in my position, so let the insults, criticism, rebukes, and screaming and hollering begin....it will not change one iota of what I believe!
we're not talking "god's divine institution", we're talking legal, secular marriage. So your post is basically worthless in the context of a discussion of secular, legal issues relating to marriage.
So Jared, since the two buddhists that live in the apartment above me dont believe in your God, yet they have a legal document from the state declaring them married...do you disagree with their marriage also?