E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Beck Diefenbach / Reuters file
Gay marriage supporters cheer during a rally moments before hearing that Proposition 8 had been overturned outside the Ninth Circuit Courthouse in San Francisco, Calif., on Feb. 7, 2012. A federal court later declined an appeal to revisit California's gay marriage ban in June, clearing the way for the Supreme Court to consider whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.
Gay rights groups cheered the Obama administration’s weighing in on a landmark Supreme Court case to allow same-sex marriage, while opponents decried the move as “war.”
But ultimately, constitutional and Supreme Court scholars say the government’s action of filing a legal brief on Thursday in support of repealing California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, will have little impact on the outcome of the case though it would carry some symbolic meaning.
Previous administrations have weighed in on cases brought to the nation’s highest court in which they were not directly involved -- such as the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies over the desegregation of schools, and the Reagan administration urging the justices to overrule the legalization of abortion, said Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor and author of “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.”
“I don’t think that the government’s brief (on Prop. 8) would be that influential and I don’t say that because I think in general that’s the case, but I think everybody already knew what the administration’s position was,” he told NBC News.
“The president has made this such a salient issue and has been so clear about his position that I don’t think the brief really adds anything that we didn’t know,” he added, referring to Obama’s calls since last May for same-sex couples to have the right to marry, including his reference to the issue in his 2013 inaugural address.
Obama administration steps into gay marriage battle
The justices will hear oral arguments on Prop. 8 on March 26, with a decision expected in June.
In the legal filing, the Justice Department went further than the California case and suggested it was unconstitutional to block gay couples from getting married in at least seven other states where civil unions are offered instead. Those states, the department said, violate the Constitution if they offer civil unions to gay couples but deny them the right to marry.
While the administration takes no position in its brief beyond those states, its reasoning would have even broader implications. If the administration's legal theory were ultimately accepted, no state could, under constitutional guarantees against discrimination, deny same sex couples the right to marry.
But the administration is technically not a litigant to the Prop. 8 case, like it is in the other case that the justices will hear in late March over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law barring recognition of same-sex couples.
G. Edward White, author of "The American Judicial Tradition: Profiles of Leading American Judges” and a Supreme Court scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, said he thought the legal impact of the administration’s move in Prop. 8 would be “virtually zero.”
“I really don’t think one should attach any legal significance to this particular intervention,” he said before the brief was released.
Noting that Obama “been quite late to alter his view on same-sex marriage” -- he did so last May, announcing he supported it -- White thought this was a way to remind everybody that the administration “has now officially changed its mind on the issue.”
“My takeaway is really that this is a symbolic act on the part of the administration,” he said. “They’re doing it for political currency purposes. The justices are going to understand that’s what it is.”
William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School and a constitutional law expert who has authored many works on legal issues facing same-sex couples, said he didn’t think the brief would “necessarily change any minds” or be “as important for the outcome of the case” as the separate filings this week by about 130 notable Republicans as well as large businesses in support of same-sex marriage.
Clint Eastwood to Supreme Court: Drop California's ban on same-sex marriage
Klarman, of Harvard, agreed, saying he thought the brief by the Republicans could influence Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he considers the swing vote on gay marriage.
“I think someone like Justice Kennedy … is interested among other things in how much political backlash there would be to a ruling in favor of gay marriage. The fact that there's so many Republicans now committing to support it is highly relevant,” he said.
“I think it matters that Obama was re-elected," he also noted. "If there were a President Romney who would be committed to opposing the decision then I think, you know, a swing justice might be more hesitant. I think it matters that Obama is president and I think it matters that Obama already came out in favor of this, but I don’t think the brief really adds much information.”
Though the experts don’t expect the legal briefs to carry much weight among the justices, parties on both sides of the issue were roused by the move.
ProtectMarriage.com, which brought the legal challenge to keep Prop. 8 on the books after the state of California decided not to defend it, decried the effort, calling it a “frontal assault” on the law by the Solicitor General in an email to supporters.
The group also said the bid was “a stunning declaration of war against the longstanding meaning of marriage and its obvious ties to society’s interesting in both mothers and fathers raising the next generation.”
Meanwhile, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sole sponsor of the challenge to Prop. 8 that also organized the brief by moderate and conservative Republicans as well as Libertarians, welcomed the government to its side.
“The brief filed by the Solicitor General is a powerful statement that Proposition 8 cannot be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded,” the group said in a statement. “AFER looks forward to having Solicitor General (Donald) Verrilli and the federal government by our side as we make the case for marriage equality for all before the Supreme Court.”
Related:
Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief
Widow to Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples
Leave a Comment:
he dosen't have much impact on any thing
A repeal of Proposition 8 is cause for "war?"
What about sending 60 million taxpayer dollars to aid Syria?
Priorities anyone?
Obama is a Moron to even think this is a REAL issue for The United States of America.
This is 110% bullshlt liberal crap......
When we are giving 60 million to Syria and then Obama uses's sequester jargon to release thousands of illegal immigrants......then I call BULLSHlT on Obama.... using gay marriage as a political bullcrap football to further his really lame agenda.
This whole article and Obama's crap is total 110% liberal garbage....period.
Um ......
You could come to Washington State where both are legal.
Imagine that.
Another prime example of the Wannabe New Emporer forgetting about the separation and the checks and balances of our government. More political grandstanding horsesht, when he should be doing his part in reducing federal spending, i.e. ending his personal jaunts on the taxpayer dime playing golf, shopping trips for michelle, and all the rest. VERY FEW Americans can afford to travel to work, much less all the "whistle stop, blame game, shirk responsibility crap" we see from the disunifier in chief.
More important things in this world than a ban on same sex marriages. Especially considering the Illegal Immigration Issue (which apparently most of his family is), considering this 16trillion plus debt, that he can't seem to get through his head that spending isn't going to lower that debt, or the countless other important things facing working class Americans like home ownership, foreclosures, price gouging, wall street speculators, the credit industry, and yes, even the price of toilet paper being influenced by big oil. But lets just stop the world a sec, King Barry has something to say about gays... And we wonder what the hell is wrong with this country...
According to the Constitution, the federal government has no powers in this matter. That makes it a case for the State. The feds have little, if any, respect for the Constitution.
Shosyn
it's not garbage and not some random "idea" of liberals. The people themselves that are affected (Gay people) want this right. Obama came out (so to speak) in support of this right himself only about a year ago.
Gay people can't fall in love with people of the opposite sex. And mostly they don't have control over being Gay or not, it's not a choice. So not being for letting Gay people marry who they love (someone fo the same sex) relegates them to a life of not being married and not able to be married. It takes a way a right everyone else has. It is not fair.
Science has show that most people are born Gay and that it isn't a choice.
Marriage is two things. THere is religous marriage recongized by churches and other places of worship. And there is civil marriage recongized by the government. Both kinds are recognized by society, community, friends and family.
Civil marriage confers rights and privleges that Gay people would not get to have if they were not allowed to (civilly) marry. No one thinks we should force any church to recongize Gay marriages...but that our government cannot descriminate against Gay people who want to marry someone of the gender that they fall in love with.
If there were federal civil unions they could be legistlated to confer most tangible marriage rights theoretcially (such as inheritance and recieving social security benefits of a spouse, pensions etc...filing joint taxes etc) but that has never been proposed as far as I know. And that state does not confer the intangible benefits of true Marriage
Marriage as a term carries the stamp of approval from community family and friends. People know what that relationship is (entirely committed and meaning to be life long). Civil unions are not the same. It would be akin to "separate but equal". Making up a catagory for Gay committed relationships "civil unions" would not be seen as equal by people/society even if tangibly they got the same benefits.
We need to support marriage of all people. Marriage is a commitment of fidelity and lifelong companionship that enhances society. IT should be available to all citizens as an option, even Gay citizens who have the makeup where they cannot fall in love with the opposite sex. DOMA is stupidly entitled. IT should be DOHMA--defense of heterosexual marriage act.
Millions of children in this country have Gay parents. THey should be allowed to have married parents.
Amazing! The first 7 posts have nothing to do about gay rights, the institution of marriage or religious dogma. It is just a bunch of mean hatfull bigots that want to rant and curse and have discovered that NBC can be an outlet that they can use.
A declaration of war and Clint Eastwood just jumped ship and crossed the line to Obama's side. Imagine that after the empty chair thing.
Then I shall be the first! Gays have the same rights as non gays and they are spelled out in the Constitution. The right to marriage is not in the Constitution for gays or straights, that is equal. Religion is a different matter and so varied it could hardly be considered in a post, a book would be more appropriate. Since I don't participate in any religion I shall post nothing except that every person that says they have a direct relationship with God has their own opinion. When God talks to me I shall immediately post it.
The opposition (in the main) has squat to do with the realities of Homosexuality, and more to do with the realisation that Today, people really CAN live free of Bigotry as was intended in 1776, that there is NO excuse for one Belief Set being embedded into Core Constitutional Rights to the exclusion of all other Belief Sets, that the Constitutional Freedoms really do apply to everyone and do not have the postscript: "as long as you are not Gay".
Welcome - at last - to the Real World, where people matter, not Dogma. Took 236 years, but, finally, True Freedom is starting to break out, not a dogmatic 17th Century version.
Anyone not like that? Emigrate to a barren Pacific Island - you should be happy there, where your personal bigoted views can hold sway. Everyones happy then.
Wire: I believe the fact that President Obama SUPPORTS EQUAL RIGHTS had an 'impact' on the election. I understand if you refuse to accept this but I believe it is counter productive to ignore what the majority of WE THE PEOPLE voted for.....Your bad choice, your bad results, your loss....IMHO: the intelligent, rational, patriotic Republicans need to separate themselves from the tea-nut gallery and the 'Destroy our POTUS' crowd- but again-your choice.............
Shosyn
In that case, let's restrict your rights to marry and see if it becomes a real issue.
and yet you feel compelled to read and comment on it.
Republican Senator McCain wants us to do MORE THAN THAT.
Huh? The republicans should love this, automatic spending cuts. Oh and how many republicans have 'hired' illegals to work for them. Hmmm I love the hypocrisy.
Remember, this is a free country, you can move.
Thank you President Obama for standing up for equal marriage rights for all Americans. The words "We the People" Apply to everyone.
This is not a 'war', its doing what's right for the United States of America. All American citizens are entitled to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". For the religious, please by all means practice your 1st amendment rights, but the government will also live up to doing what's right. God is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. Christianity is not, nor will it or any other religion be the official religion of the United States of America, and in this country, secular law is higher than any of god's laws.
wire palladin,
If "he doesn't have much impact on any thing" (sic), why do clueless ideologues despise him so much? Oh, I get it! This is your witty attempt to marginalize the president. Bravo! Well done. I will now renew my republican voter registration. Whew, the nation nearly crumbled because people actually believe in "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Good for Obama on this one. I enjoy the sound of some of the conservative heads exploding up thread.
Cowbow Bob used to say, "If horses of a different color can get along.......why can't gays get married?"
Something like that anyway. "Don't forget to take your nap now you hear?"
OMG a war seriously....and these peeps claim to love our country....give me a break.....all u haters need to take your tin foil hats off!!!
If you don't like living here than please feel free to move to Iran where RELIGION RULES....I hear it's very nice there this time of year.
Once the SCOTUS rules it will be the law of the land and there's not a dayum thing u can do about it:)
Don Giacomo
"Amazing! The first 7 posts have nothing to do about gay rights, the institution of marriage or religious dogma. It is just a bunch of mean hatfull bigots that want to rant and curse and have discovered that NBC can be an outlet that they can use."
I was the second post, and nothing I posted was hateful or bigot- related...
@Dick:
Clint Eastwood has always been for gay marriage. He just filed friend-of-the-court brief recently, but his view was well known.
I can't stand Obama, but this is an issue we agree on. I can't believe that in 2013, gays are still not allowed to marry. It's so unabashedly discriminatory. As I've said before, LOVE IS LOVE. And when my husband and I decided to marry, I realized, more than ever, how important it is to be allowed to marry the person you are madly in love with and who is also your best friend. Why deny a whole group of people that just because they were born gay? GET OUT OF THE DARK AGES PEOPLE. It will change nothing for you homophobes, nor anyone else.
Tell that to the Republicans who spend so much time and money enacting and defending bans on same-sex marriages. A group of Republican congressman are spending PUBLIC funds to pay a PRIVATE law firm to defend DOMA in court. They started this fight. The President is trying to end it.
ONCE MORE...
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. That's why my Godless, pagan, baby punching self could get married tomorrow without stepping foot in a church. You're confusing it with Holy Matrimony.
Of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.
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.
There's also a little something called The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, which states that each state has to recognize and respect the legal matters of every other state. Therefore, leaving this up to the states DOESN'T work, because if you get married in CA, the Constitution states that NC, who has a state amendment AGAINST gay marriage, has to recognize the marriage contract from CA. Now, how do you suggest THAT works? Also, NO we don't leave civil rights up to a majority vote. We're a Republic, meaning the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the majority. See above for ALL the NUMEROUS reasons this IS a civil rights issue.
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, consider this...
We live in a free society, which means your "slippery slope" is only applicable when you want to expand government power, NOT when you're expanding rights. Ergo, the slippery slope actually works AGAINST the anti-equality argument. It's more logical and legally correct to say that banning marriage based on gender, could lead the government to presume they have the power to ban marriage based on other protected classes, i.e. race or religion.
And then ask yourselves this...
Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that? And the answer is ALSO the answer as to why gay marriage won't lead to those things.
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.
ALSO...
Finally, in Turner v Safley the court ruled that marriage is in NO way based on procreation. Hence infertile people get married ALL the time, nor is procreation outside of marriage banned. The procreation argument only holds water if procreation is completely and totally dependent on marriage, and marriage is limited to only those who procreate.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html
You're focusing on on the part of the quote that's irrelevant and missing the part I bolded about marriage being a civil right.
As far as incest and polygamy??? Well why doesn't straight marriage lead to that? The answer to THAT is ALSO the answer to why gay marriage doesn't.
Administration's objective: flood the court systems.
Wait a minute....where did I hear that agenda before ?
The point everyone seems to be missing is that this is not about the Obama administration trying to influence the court; rather it is a statement on the record which will show our party's dedication to distributing equal rights among all American citizens. That way, should the court make a decision that runs counter to the philosophy of this admininistration and that of a solid majority of the American people, then liberals won't own it, conservatives will, forever, or until conservatism stops hating everyone who isn't just like them. This is a footnote to future generations that says that some were working to do the right thing, but were stopped by hate, bigotry and fear. The identity of those who stopped it will be clear for everyone to see. It will not be a proud moment should it come down that way, but it will clear us and our consciences, knowing we were on the right side of history and we tried to do something about it; it didn't go down without a fight.
The whole problem rests in the fact that our goverment has given legal standing to the religious ceremony of marriage. The issue could be resolved by eliminating any and all legal recognition of any MARRIAGE and ONLY recognizing civil unions. Then, any pair of people who file legal papers defining their status as 1 entity would be entitled to any benefits that are codified for couples. A religious joining would be given civil union status and a gay legal union would be recognized as the same entity. Problem solved, except that the bible-thumpers would never stand for being treated as no more special than anyone else.
I now pronounce you man and wife.
That's the way it's been and that's the way I think it ought to stay.
I consider same sex attraction to be something of an abnormality. Homosexuals do not use their sex organs in the way that is consistent with millions of years of human evolution. If you ask a homosexual woman to allow a man to insert his erect penis in her vagina, she will have a very negative reaction. But the vagina is designed to accommodate an erect penis.
I would certainly not wish for my chidlren to have same-sex attraction. It is not a desirable trait.
There are few enough homosexuals. The condition does not occur that often.
I think that some accommodation could be made, but I do object to overloading marriage to include same sex arrangements. Keep marriage as the union between a man and a woman. You know, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve :-)
1.27
There's no scripture that commands the exchange of marriage vows in the Bible
Anyone referring to "vows" needs to understand that lawfully held marriages have NOT been only church services.
Judges have performed marriages.... and weddings don't all take place next to an altar.
Those "church" marriages have no guarantees...of love, devotion, and respect.
Your statement is false because it is based on a flawed premise;
Marriage is NOT solely a religious ceremony! Religion does not, and has never, owned the word "marriage." People can get legally married without any interference from, or sanction by, any religion.
Marriage is in NO way, shape or form, a religious ceremony. You're confusing it with Holy Matrimony.
Ok, homophobes, do you feel lucky?
Well do you, punks?
-Eastwood
.
I know the sound of which you speak; it is a hollow sound, to be sure.
Love works, religion doesn't.
Prayer works, religion doesn't.
Caring works, religion doesn't.
Selfless giving works, religion doesn't.
There is a common thread to the theme here if you look carefully. See if you can find it. I know it's especially hard to spot if you are a conservative, but do your best. It's important for your future if you want to continue to retain viable status as a lifeform on this planet.
Who married Adam and Eve, the serpent? If you believe that story then you should know that there was no minister, priest or rabbi around back then. So you might say that they were an unmarried couple, and that their children were born out of wedlock. Does that make them horrible people? Perhaps your hate should be aimed at them instead of gays, lesbians, etc... Stop hating others out of fear or lack of knowledge. Who are you to tell anyone how to live?
Just another example of how old laws are antiquated and need revision. We are becoming overpopulated; so, having gay people cuts down on population growth.
And to the gay marriage opponents: What about "...until death do you part"? That part of the marriage vows has been broken millions of times by heterosexuals ... and all in the eyes of God **thunder**
Tell that to Richard and Mildred Loving. Your side lost that round too, just like you've lost every single court case this time.
And it's no wonder you bigots are losing on this issue since you clearly don't understand how the constitution works.
CommonSense
And because gay couples cannot reproduce themselves, more adoptive babies will find new healthy, happy homes.
Its a win/ win.
Flat wrong. You've confused the legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of holy matrimony, which has no legal standing whatsoever.
Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you. Marriage is a civil legal contract, not a religious rite.
Christians believe they are all God's children. Adults needed. Grow up, children.
To "not a russian", I can think of a lot of things worse than one of your children being born homosexual. If that's the worst thing you think your child can be, you've got your priorities mixed up. And BTW, I feel sorry for your kids.
@Skrekk is right. A religious ceremony of marriage has legal standing ONLY if accompanied by a state-issued marriage license. And, a church/minister is only one of several ways that marriage license can be validated -- judge, county court clerk, justice of the peace, mayor, etc....
Barry, note that the religious ceremony itself has no legal weight at all. The only legal part is where the officiant says "By the power vested in me by the state of....", and when the officiant signs the state-issued license as an official witness. Both are the civil actions of a proxy for the state, not religious acts at all. And if that marriage license isn't filed with the state or the fee not paid, there is in fact no marriage.
In other words two completely different things are going on during a church wedding - a religious rite and a civil function. It would be far better if we did what France does and only allow marriage to be formalized at a government office. In France no one can get married in a church.
All the people who have the their panties in a bunch over traditional marriage should get real. No one is forcing anyone to marry a gay person. If consenting adults want to get married why should the government stand in the way? (this goes for polygamy as well)
Do you know what the whole sanctity of marriage is about?
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, ordained by God, in the presence of witnesses... what God has joined together, let no man asunder. As the religeous ceremony goes. Now in the same breath, in the same "RELIGEOUS" sanctity of marriage (afterall, marriage is a RELIGEOUS expression) in which as I recall NUMEROUS VERSES in the Bible, you know that Black Book, the actual marriage ceremony comes from (prior to religeon - when we were just ass scratching booty sniffers who mated with anything we could catch, you know before man became civilized, religeous and all that stuff). I recall a parable of sodom and gammorah (gays and prostitutes) that supposedly "God" turned em to salt. And else where where it talks about even in the beginning Adam and Eve, not Adam and Andy, or other such things. I am not a religeous person by any stretch, but it seems to me HYPOCRITICAL of someone who wants to engage in what is supposed to be a religeous experience to do so directly oppositely aligned to what the whole damned thing is supposed to be about. But hey, what do I know, I mean for god's sake, when we belly ache about the separation of church and state and how we cant say the pledge of allegiance in school cause it has that "God" word in it, or how we just can't have a Christmas Tree in school, or how we just can't do this or that because it might upset the agnostics and atheists, but the same atheists sure do love all that imprinted In God We Trust money they covet, you will just have to forgive me when I call HYPOCRICY when I see it.
It's not a matter of hetero versus homo. It's a matter of the federal government over stepping its bounds that are defined by the Constitution. This is a State matter to be settled by each state as it sees fit. I don't have a problem with same sex marriage, but I do have a problem with the federal government encroaching where it doesn't belong.
Will, in the first place, the United States is NOT a theocracy. In the second place, you and the rest of the far right continually to chant for government to leave you alone and get out of your lives. Yet you have no problem using the power of a branch of government as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the rest of society into abiding by YOUR religious beliefs. Talk about HYPOCRISY!
The heart of the matter is that nothing has changed in your life since several states approved gay marriage and it is beyond hypocrisy when anyone dictates to others how they should and should not pursue happiness (or don't you believe in the freedom to pursue happiness according to the dictates of your own conscience)? I suspect you hold that right for yourself, but not others.
Shady J and Will. If you have ever read any of my posts you would know how frequently I advocate for a smaller, less intrusive government overall, and federal government in particular. There is how ever need for a national approach to this issue. First of all, state bans on same-sex marriage violate both the federal Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Like it or not (Will), here in the US, marriage can be both a religious and a civil process. If one gets married through a religious ceremony the minister of the marriage is acting on behalf of the state, in that the state recognizes the legitimacy of the marriage for civil purposes. A couple can also get married by the civil government without the religious ceremony. For legal purposes, there is no difference in the religious versus civil ceremony. Therefore, all religious marriage ceremonies carry the seal of the government, if you will, and are in part civil marriages.
Civil marriage is, in its essence, a contract. If the government decides who can and cannot enter into a contract based on the gender of the parties to that contract then the government discriminates based on sex. Such discrimination is prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Further, by deciding thus, the government denies same-sex couples both due process and equal protection as required by the Constitution. Clearly, same-sex marriage bans are illegal at the federal level.
As to the States versus Federal jurisdiction issue, yes it has historically been the province of the States to decide issues related to marriage. This creates monumental practical issues with broad implications. If some states ban same-sex marriage and others don't then as same-sex couples married in Vermont, let's say, travel across the country they will be married in some places and not married in others. Because these couples have both federal and state benefits in being married (as do heterosexual married couples) they will gain and lose the state benefits depending on their location. If the same-sex couple has adopted children, what is the status of parental rights as they move across the country? Are they still the parents, is only one of them a parent, which one, neither of them? An inconsistent approach by the states invites chaos in the arena of private lives and this certainly is not in the best interest of the nation. There is therefore a compelling federal government interest in assuring consistency of treatment of married couples throughout the nation. This patchwork approach would be the same as some states declaring that they will only recognize their own driver's licenses as valid in that state.
Joemike ... although it is implied in your argument, it can be stated explicitly that marriage recognition is a federal matter because it directly impacts interstate commerce. Every state doesn't have to allow gay marriage, but it has to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Otherwise, gays will be unable to travel to other states (even temporarily) without the fear that if something happens to them, they and their partners will not have the legal protections available to heterosexual couples.
As a Christian, I believe we must pay attention to what Jesus himself had to say about homosexuality. The entirety of his teachings follows:
That's right! Jesus never condemned homosexuality, but today's self-declared expert Christians believe they know better what God would condemn. I'm pretty sure Jesus questioned the wisdom of the Old Testament writings (which are often quoted to oppose gay marriage) when he visited with the Temple scholars at the age of twelve, and he condemned Pharisees on more than one occasion. Personally I find the "Nuns on the Bus" to be the most Christian Americans today, and would follow their actions before any of the Armani-suited Megachurch preachers.
will
"marriage is a union between man and woman ordained by God"
I think you are confusing civil marriage and religous marriage. That definition is that of religious marriage. No one is trying to make churches marry people.
Civil marriage is confirmed by the government. It allows inheritance, taxes, social security benefits and other tangible benfits to the surviving spouse.
Both civil and reliious marriage are understood by family, friends, community, and society as committed long term relationships.
In recent years science has shown that most Gay people cannot choose to fall in love with the opposite sex...they have no choice in this--it's how they are made..there are brain differences that make them as they are. If they are not allowed marriage we are swearing them to a life without that benefit just because of how they were born.
We can't make churches allow them religious marriage but we can have the government allow them civil marriage and the rights and privleges that come with that. Marriage is good for society...it is the most recognised way to make a permanant famiily, starting with two people who swear an oath of commitment to eachother in front of family, friends and community. To not allow Gay citizens the right to marry whoever they can love (which for them is same sexed people) is to deprive them of the right other people are being given.
Civil unions are not the same. Having civil unions of Gay people and marriage only for straight is a "separate but equal" false equivalence very much like the Southern Jim Crow "separate but equal" that they had for Black people. We know from that that society never viewed what was different (things for Blacks) as equal and actually it was inferior. Society knows what marriage is and civl unions would be looked down on as this new inferior thing just for Gays. Gays deserve to have the real deal--civil Marriage--just like eveyrone else.
how about pedophilia or someone wanting sex with an animal? Same difference since the only thing between gay and straight is sexual preference.
Here is an idea, why don't all the gay's and driggies move to the States that allow thos perversions and leave the rest of the 80% of the country alone. Win Win.
The people spoke in CA. It is their RIGHT since it was done leagally and according to the law. Please leave and take Fienstien and Pelosi with you.
Barry, your stement is falicy. One state does not 'by law' have to honor a law from another state. The Fed has no madate in the Constitution to make or defend any law regarding this issue at all.
If what you say is true, then I could legally travel to Illinois carrying my handgun since that is legal in my state. If that were true then Someone from Washington State could pack up their reefer and go to any other state because Washington says it is okay.
Don't try to defend something that the Fed has no legal right to be involved in. CA voted for the law so it is the responsibility of the State to honor it. It isn't like it was passed in the legislature without any by in from the people such as is practiced in D.C.
N Laurino - You cite a common, yet idiotic argument in equating same-sex marriage to pedophilia. One could logically make the argument that both homosexuals and pedophiles are hardwired into their sexual preferences - so are heterosexuals BTW. The difference is that of consent. Two adult, mutually consenting same-sex partners entering into marriage is an equal relationship. The relationship between a pedophile and his/her victim is, by its nature, unequal and coercive. Despite the "love" that the pedophile professes for his victim, it is an abusive relationship because the child is not able - either legally or psychologically - able to give consent. Therefore the state has the obligation to protect the vulnerable child from an abusive relationship. It does so by making these relationships a violation of the law.
Regarding your other post, the state of California is part of the United States. Therefore, the people of California cannot pass a law that violates the federal Constitution, regardless of the "legality" of the process used to do so.
Barry - Thanks for your post. I haven't thought about it in those terms, but I can certainly see the argument regarding interstate commerce.
Guns and reefer are objects. Marriage is a contract. If you and I sign a contract in NY, for instance, it is enforceable in CA.
To take another example, adoptions are recognized by all states, even if the adoption itself could not be carried out in a particular state (say, an adoption by a gay or a single adult). If a gay couple and their adopted child travel to a state where gay adoption is banned, they are not at risk of having that child taken away.
I like your idea of upholding contract laws, but allowing uniform civil rights in this area (so that gay people can actually marry in the state they live in) would be a better solution. Gay marriage is not recognized from one state to another, though, and the Federal Government has taken steps before to stop this kind of abuse of civil liberties. Most Virginians will remember the Loving case, where an interracial couple was forced to move out of state or be jailed because interracial marriages were still against the law well into the 1950s. Being forced to move to another state is a hardship on families, and should be addressed by the federal government. For what it's worth, I was married in a civil ceremony in one state, and moved to another state after marriage and had a very difficult time having my marriage recognized as legal because it was not performed in a church, and I'm hetero. The contract difficulties will continue to nag at people and the system until the issue is decided uniformly.
Well the 'contract' you are referring to is not covered under the commerce clause simply because people are not objects or traded. I suppose if you bought your partner you may use that arguement, but them violate another law against slavery or human trafficking.
Marraige of anykind is not under the authority of the FED in any case. It is up to the states as to how and what it considers acceptable. Just like all progressives/libs, you want the FED to act on your behalf when you disagree with something like they have the actual authority to do everything they want. I know they act like it and under this idiot Obama have actually done a lot they shouldn't.
Joe - my point about pedophilia is that since Homosexuality is nothing more than a physical preference, there is no difference if someone prefers children/animals. I agree that all three are wrong when trying to seek laws or protections under the law.
Back to my comment about moving if you don't like the laws where you live. Merry-Berry, it is only a hardship on a family if they in fact recognized as a family. Using Interacial marriage in comparison is not viable since one, we are still dealing with a preference and two, a race is not a seperate species. No matter what race you are, you are still compsed of male and female gender. Skin color aside (as it should be), male and female have always been able to marry.
Argue all you want the fact is still the FED has no right or authority to interfere in the issue with the exception as to rule (SCOTUS) on weather the law of CA is constitutional and since it was overwhellmingly approved by the people and mot the legislature, I beleive it holds more weight.
Wait, where was that? Did you have a common law marriage?
I hate the "BUT PEDOPHILIA AND BESTIALITY!" argument. And it frightens me how some people can't see the difference between a consensual relationship between adults and a coerced relationship with a lack of consent and an obvious power disparity.
The federal "Violence against women" law (which also applies to men) has been upheld by the courts on the grounds that domestic violence may prevent victims from traveling to other states, interfering with their right to conduct commerce ("commerce" is just about the movement of objects, but about the movement of people).
so gee, will - just go ask the mythical sky fairy for it's opinion then - remember IF you hear a response in your head, SEEK MENTAL HEALTH PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BAT SHIITE LOONEY TUNES
Wonder if there's any chance Tom Cruise will get it right this time?
Will the Watcher you are delusional. Gods are imaginary and religion (myths) have nothing to do with the rights of gays.
Interstate Commerce does apply - I remember about 30 years ago when i was 18 in
Mississippi, a few 'couples' of high school classmates of mine that were 18
year old males and females (yes - heterosexual) wanted to marry but law at the
time in Mississippi was that males had to be 21 years of age in order to marry
without requiring parental permission, females needed to be 18. So they went across
the state line to Alabama and got married there. When they came home, whether
their parents or the state approved or not didn't matter at all, the state
recognizes LEGAL marriages from all other states - just like EVERY STATE did
before DOMA. DOMA is going to be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
As for commerce – think of how much money Neanderthal states
are going to miss out on:
No marriage License fees from gay couples
No churches collecting huge rental / event fees
No income from flower shops, wedding gown/tux places,
hotels, etc…
Sounds like you're trying to infringe the religious liberty of Episcopalians. They don't hate gays like you do, nor do they restrict marriage based on gender.
DOMA will most certainly be struck down but it won't accomplish what you want since there's a "public policy exception" to Full Faith and Credit. It's why out of state mixed-race marriages weren't recognized in southern states before 1967.
Actually morons I don't hate gays or dispise them or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that Marriage is supposed to be and was inceptionalized as a RELIGEOUS ceremony. To see Gays seeking to have thier marriages in a church is hypocritical. Likewise for you doofises that can't add or put 2 and 2 together, the separation of church and state, which is the normal war cry for hypocrits, sure as hell don't have a problem with the tax break you get filing MARRIED Jointly, thus, my friends IS the government ENDORSING RELIGEON or a RELIGEOUS INSTITUTION (since gays don't get the same opportunity - whether or not I agree or disagree with thier lifestyle or what have you).
I find it equally distasteful to see any one, be it gays, or heterosexuals macking out in public, playing touchy feely, or the other host of birds and bees fever that strikes them. There is a time and a place for such things, and in a public park in front of kids is not appropriate. Personally I could care less if gays got thier "civil unions", but for gays to go crawling into church - thus my reference earlier - when the very same BIBLE they teach from says "Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Furthermore, "Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Therefore, people to push the "gay let's get married in a church" garbage is pure and simple HYPOCRICY, and THAT is what I am pointing out.
Sounds like you've confused marriage with "holy matrimony." Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference between the two, and ask him how he was able to get married the second time or even how he could get divorced.
It's also crystal clear that you hate gays and want to deny the religious freedom of Episcopalians.
Actually skrekk my uncle is an episcopalian minister. Also quite the boozer too. But hypocricy knows no bounds right. As far as hating gays, that I don't. I was a vocal advocate of gays being able to openly serve in the military, as I believe any person should be able to don the uniform to support and defend thier country. In fact chief, being a retired combat vet, I have served with Gays in the military, though they weren't so open about it. The crux of the problem isn't thier orientation, but one I have seen before, with the excuses and blame game for being passed over for promotions, staff positions, etc. The "I didn't get the job because I am a woman, black, gay, Baptist, not a member of the boys club, yadda yadda yadda" garbage. It is never, I didn't get said position because I wasn't qualified, had a DUI, was demoted 3 years ago, look like a crinkled up bag of potato chips, booze it up too much, or for that matter, have the integrity of a snails ass and can't be trusted to wipe my own ass, much less perform to a higher standard in an overhead position. But that is my soap box, and those that have served before, I am sure have heard the same crap from Joey Bago Donuts who got passed over for a good deployment, set of orders, or a position of authority.
And no skrekk, I have not confused Holy Matrimony with Being Married. If you bothered to cycle back through history, you will know or should know, Being Married and Holy Matrimony were 1 in the same. The inception of "ownership" in the ancient times was not performed by a Justice of the Peace, a Court, some "common law" doctrine, or anything of the sort. It was performed by a minister, a clergyman, a decree that originated from "the church". Even Native Americans were joined in ceremony by a "holy man" of some sort and not some edict that just appeared outta thin air.
The point, which you miss and I have tried to explain, is that in our hypocracy as society, we embraced such things as benefits from the institution of marriage such as the tax breaks, the "insurance", the host of other bennies that come from that institution, while bitching about things like separation of church and state. That we pale our own selfish desires, wants, and twist about perversions of what is clearly intended to be something far far more different than what we "frankenstein" it to be. We have heard the familiar arguments of the pledge of allegiance not being constitutional because of the word GOD in it, but in the same breath, we sure as hell don't have a problem accumlating all that money with the very same words "in God we Trust" scrolled acrossed them. We sure as hell don't have a problem with declared federal holidays for Christmas and Easter. We sure don't take issue with the requirement of if you work on those days, you are entitled to more of that In God We Trust script as compensation for your time on those holidays.
We, in our hypocricy, seem to forget, realize, contemplate, or even give a damn about the very beliefs this country was founded on, Christian Principles, or the oaths we take when assuming office. We seem to forget, pervert, or otherwise disregard the truths of the birth of this country, and fail to realize that whether or not you are a religeous person or not (as I am), that the belief in a supreme being may be the only thing that we have to cling to in times of trouble or strife. Here in Montana, there is an uproar over a Jesus Statue that has sat in its place for over 60 years, and now all of a sudden there is an issue with it. Never mind the statue was placed there by Veterans to memorialize those fallen comrades, never mind the fact that while fighting those wars to liberate Europe, statues such as those were what provided our dead and dying that "comfort" in thier time of need and distress.
It is the hypocricy that surrounds us daily with our debate over gun violence, the idiocy and hypocricy of gun control, when it isn't the gun that committs the crime, or the mere unintelligent libtard argument that if suddenly there was a miraculous gun control, criminals would suddenly cease being violent. It is assinine in ANY Society to believe that criminals and those that engage in any criminal maleviolent act that they will suddenly be rehabilitable as the result of some plea agreement, that thier life is worth more than thier victims, or that THEY should be afforded MORE CONSIDERATION than those they victimize. Equally assinine is the notion that racism can only originate from caucasians, or that sexism is ONLY a male initiated practice. Never mind the women "models" that sell that sexism via the active participation in the media. But I digress here. The discussion is one of Gays wanting THIER RIGHTS, when truth be told, the only rights any of us have is the ability to breathe. Anything more is a bonus. But we are so damned consumed by our self proclaimed rights, that we forget that we are merely another species of animal, occupying this rock we call earth, and the only thing separating us from the other animals is our domination thanks to an ability to reason.
Just something to contemplate...
"the mere unintelligent libtard argument that if suddenly there was a miraculous gun control, criminals would suddenly cease being violent"
Will, you tried so hard to sound reasonable, and then end up with name-calling and misrepresenting the position of your opposition. That kind of undermines your credibiilty.
And you forgot to give an actual argument against gay marriage, at least in this particular comment.
There is no such endorsement since religion is in no way a requirement for marriage, and a religious "marriage" without a state-issued marriage license is useless.
Again the point Barry and Jock is that if Gays wish to "marry" it shouldn't coin a phrase, a religeous title such as "Marriage". Civil Union I guess is the catch phrase that is used. But it doesn't stop there. It goes to those that want that Union in the church, the same churches that preach from the bible that homosexuality is a one way ticket to hell. It harkens even to those churches that support such a stance as it is HYPOCRITICAL of the very teachings, the very same book they are supposed to espouse. And let's be honest here Barry, for the "state" to issue a "license" for "marriage", which since it's very inception, i.e. a religeous ceremony, as we have already discovered, is in fact an "endorsement" of a religeous institution. Never mind the fact that the mere licensing as it were is a way for the state to have a "buy in" on the religeous expressions of the couple being wed. Furthermore, is it not also an "unwritten standard" that our political leader, the POTUS be a family man? That we impose this "unwritten rule" that there MUST BE a First Lady, that we, as taxpayers pay for an "OFFICE of the First Lady". And yet, the hypocricy of our society continues, that we don't endorse religeon, but sure as hell are the first in line (governmentally speaking) to make a buck from it?
I do not have an argument against gays or anyone for that matter that finds whatever companionship they may between 2 consenting, legal aged, adults. Personally I couldn't give an iota if Jack and John love each other, wanna swap spit in the living room all comfy cosy watching some chick flick, and sharing a cry. Likewise, I don't really care if it is Tim and Tammy doing the same thing. Personal lives are and should be private. It is when that "private" life is thrust into my face, that I take an issue with it. And to use the word GOD here again, I would certainly hope to God, that people can see the hypocricy of the argument in the 1st place, as I previously and apparently unsuccessfully attempted to show with the whole church thing. But alas, we are all hypocrits in one way or the other, and by no means should we ever strive to be something more (sarc), than the two faced, double standard people we are.
Sorry Will, but the legal contract is called "marriage". That's what this discussion is about.
The state doesn't give a @!$%# what your cult calls its bizarre rituals, but none of them are a legal marriage. Your cult has no impact on your marital status. Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic.
oh I see.... traditional marriage get real?????
Tell me how two lesbians or gay men have biological children?
Stem cell research? Artificial Insemination? Surrogate mothers? ..... All expensive and unnatural ....
You know why people get their panties in a wad as you state? Simply because people are TOLERANT of gay life but they just are NOT going to EVER ACCEPT it.
There is a HUGE difference between ACCEPTANCE and TOLERANCE. This is something this whole gay community has NO clue about... acceptance vs. tolerance.
But how does it personally affect you if they can marry?
" ... Tell me how two lesbians or gay men have biological children? ... "
So people who for various reasons, can not have children, can't get married? Wow. I didn't know that.
" ... acceptance vs. tolerance. ... "
So please explain to us why you have/are neither of these. As your comments so very clearly show.
I used to think like you do until I suddenly saw things differently.
I learned more about Gay people and from meeting them, talking with them, seeing how they live as well as reading scientific journal articles, I came to the conclussion that most of them were probably born Gay and CERTAINLY they did not choose that nature (why would anyone choose it? it's bullied and put down and ridiculed...Gays are ostracised in school...it can be horrible. It is not something anyone would choose. It is easier in our culture to be straight).
So if they can only love same sex people and can't change that, do we have the right to not allow them to marry who they love like everyone else does?
I came to the conclussion the answer was NO. I am talking about CIVIL marriage not religious marriage. I think many Christians get confused between the two. It is not right to force a church to marry Gays but I think no one is doing that.
Civil marriage is a government recognised institution. Our Declaration of Independance and our Constitution says we are not to descriminate against people..."all men are created equal...and are endowed with certain unalienable rights--life liberty AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." If someone CANNOT LOVE the opposite sex and can ONLY love the same sex it seems to be against allowing the "pursuit of happiness" if we do not allow Gays to marry who they love.
That's the conclussion I came to after much research and thought.
How nice for you that you can speak for everybody.
@Laurali: That is why for over three decades now, I have been a proponent of either declaring all 1400+ (including DOMA) laws related to marriage unconstitutional or amending each and every one of them to change "marriage/married" to "civil union" since that is actually what that license granted by local/state governments is...a civil contract, just as "marriage" in most cultures historically have been - a contract between the two families uniting one of their offspring for the purpose of property rights, etc. That is why the "bride's" family had to offer a dowry before a couple could get married. The church recognition is called Holy Matrimony in most religions/denominations and that IS the distinction that most people fail to remember. And NO church can perform that ceremony in the US without the couple first obtaining the civil marriage license and meeting all of the requirements of that state for that license.
Tell me how two lesbians or gay men have biological children?Stem cell research? Artificial Insemination? Surrogate mothers? ..... All expensive and unnatural ....
A. I'm not sure how the expense of artificial insemination has any thing to do with gay marrage?
B. Homosexuals are not creating babies though stem cell research.
You do realize that countless straight couples conceive children that way as well, including one of Mitt Romney's sons?
There are many ways to make a family for gays & lesbians, including adoption. More than 460,000 children are in the foster care system due to abuse or neglect (by straight parents) . An estimated 30,000 of these children will leave care without a lasting family connection and be at risk for considerable hardships throughout adulthood.
I don't know, but I wonder if all the opposition is due to equating gay marriage to hetero marriage in all ways. It is not the same technically; can we not call it gay marriage while giving the exact same rights? Is there something wrong with that? It IS different.
@ janellect~
How is it different, other than the couple having the same parts?
So by your standards, a hetero sexual woman who is barren can't get married?? You make no sense as do all hatefilled people.
Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Isn't there something like that in the bible? Guess that means that if you love your neighbor, who is the same sex as you, as you love yourself, then you're gay.
And if you love yourself when you're alone, then that must also mean you're gay.
Which means that the right had better be prepared to give up masturbation - and love - because you obviously have no clue as to who and what we are as human beings.
janellect,
Yes, there is something wrong with that! It's called Jim Crow laws and they are unconstitutional. Please read Brown v Brd of Educaton: "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."
"And if you love yourself when you're alone, then that must also mean you're gay."
Nope, just that you'll go blind before anyone else.
Sorry, couldn't resist :p Happy Friday!
shosyn - stick it in your EAR - how's that for KINKY? SO riddle me this - HOW ARE YOU (as in PERSONALLY) AFFECTED?
I'm not gay but unless I am required to "participate" I can see IMPACT ON ME.
Let the rest of us know when the sky starts falling...again... maybe you should change your name to chicken little (or little chicken)
If that's your argument you just convinced Justice Roberts to vote with the majority for equality, since both his kids are adopted. Looks like it'll be 6-3 for marriage equality!
Good to hear though that you oppose marriage for all infertile couples.
We don't need you're acceptance, we need equal rights and the SCOTUS is the only that's going to happen since so many people in this great country still fell simple majority should be allowed to step on the minority. Think about - if you took a popular vote I seriously doubt you would see this country allowing interacial marriage, I know it would not have passed in the 60's but I seriously doubt it was pass today either - especially in certain redneck neanderthal knucle-dragger southern states.
Rick, I am not religeous, but attended church as a youth, and have the following retort for your question. There is, as I recall, Agape' Love (Brotherly Love), the same as you would show your brother, your sister, and a close and dear friend. It certainly doesn't involve bumping nasties with em, swappin spit, or the host of other interactions that occur between smitten couples. With that said, I the same book you quote, as I posted in a previous comment, also condones, and infact teaches homosexuality is a date with the lake of fire. So, for the argument, for "gay" couples to "wed" as it were, in the same churches, the same vows, the same ceremony, is hypocricy at it's finest. And for a church, that preaches from that same book, to engage in activities that are expressly "forbidden" in that book is another prime example of the hypocricy as well. But certainly, so long as there is a "rental fee", or a "tithe contribution", or for that matter the silly little things such as purchasing a marriage license (where our government who is supposed to be separate from the church, is right there along with em to make a buck as well. And in fact, it is the same "separation of church and state" that has the government, through taxation, endorsing a religeous ceremony (i.e. the married filing joint status). And nowhere, until recent times (within the last 10 years) has marriage been anything other than a religeous institution. In the beginning (to coin the phrase), marriage and matrimony, were religeous institutions, ordained by God, in the presence of witnesses. Even Native Americans who were NOT christianized prior to the landing of Europeans used "holy men", "shamans" to ordain those unions. In the early advent of Civilized Man (the Polytheisitic religeons) marriages were in temples, performed by priests, and NO WHERE was there ever any record of any "justice of the peace", "court order", or "common law" crap that duplicated or otherwise circumvented that "religeous practice" of uniting a couple, much less endorsing, condoning, or otherwise cheering on same sex unions, even though being GAY is not a new phenomenon. History is littered with gays and lesbians, and sure as hell, NO WHERE was there ever an "endorsement" of ANY SORT for Gay Unions, because TRUTH BE TOLD HERE, Marriage was a religeous institution, and homosexuality was an abomination. Now all of a sudden, we hear the tolerance speel, the it's not thier fault - they were born that way, the they deserve equal rights, the blah blah blah stuff being crammed down our throats.
Personally, I don't give a hoot if Gays have a civil union or not. I just think it is HYPOCRICY to call it Marriage, when clearly ALL RELIGEONS (and remember Marriage/Matrimony IS a Religeous Institution) term it as one of the sure fire ways to end up in hades, hell, or reincarnated as some bug or a turd or something demeaning. I just don't want to have it thrust into my face, and I sure don't need to see 2 same sexed people macking out, feeling each other up, or the host of other touchy feely stuff that occurs, in public. I don't need to see it from heterosexuals either. There is a place, and that place is NOT in the park, in the store, in the library, or heaven forbid, behind the church (though I prolly wouldn't see it anyhow, as I am NOT a church goer).
Because they have the same parts. Exactly. That's what I meant. I did not mean that people do not deserve the same benefits. It would be easier for your opponents to accept that it is not a traditional marriage because frankly, it isn't... and I don't want to get into the science of genetics/behavior because there will be some other attack.
How many times has "traditional marriage" been changed? If tradition is what we're talking about we need to go back to trading daughters for goats. What difference does it make if they have the same parts? How does it affect your life and relationships? And gay couples DO deserve the same rights. Heteros shouldn't be the only couples allowed to further @!$%# up the "sanctity" of marriage.
A college text by Plomin has some information regarding genetics and environment on homosexual behavior. http://www.amazon.com/Behavioral-Genetics-Robert-Plomin/dp/1429205776
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
Relevancy please! What the hell does what some guy named Isaiah said have to do with anything?
The relevancy is that Almighty God warned us through His trusted servant, Isaiah, that pursuing what is bad and calling it good and denying what is good and calling it bad, will meet with righful and justified punishment. Obedience to God is good, but the disobedient to God call it bad.
Our society today is falling apart, imploding from destructive false beliefs, greed, depravity and sexual debauchery- just like the fall of Rome. Just like the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were utterly destroyed because of their decadence. The word sodomy, which used to be illegal in most states comes from that city name. Sodomy is dangerous on all levels, especially for health reasons.
Did you know that the spread of death-dealing aids took off like a fire due to anal sex? Think about it.
If you get chest pain some day, will you consult the sages of 3,000 years ago to find out what to do for it or will you consult modern medical science?
Why is it with questions of morality, you are willing to consult those same ancient people? Just think about that for a moment. Remember, these ancient peoples came from societies that thought burying children into the foundations of buildings would protect them from evil. Slavery was was a beautiful thing for them.
Through no thanks of religion (and often pernicious obstacle building) 21st century societies in the West particularly, now afford rights to women, children, and non-human animals that would have been condemned by the people you claim to draw your morals from.
By all means, continue to cherry pick the good bits from holy texts and faith-organizations from around the globe. But don't be surprised that people like me, and others I'm sure right here in this comment section, roll their eyes at your attempt to trump modern morality with appeals to so-called ancient authorities who would have killed me on the spot for being a person of no faith or a woman for not sequestering herself from the tribe long enough while she was menstruating.
faithful watcher...but not everyone believes in your god, and the US is not a theocracy. Many people believe the Sodom and Gomorrah story is fairy tale, and, as it was written thousands of years ago, has no relevance in the 21st century. No one is trying to turn you gay; stop tring to turn everyone religious.
Your statements are a classic example of falsehood brought about by ignorance of the truth of the matter. Just the same as FALSE "religion".
Our Almighty God is very real, very much alive and true devotion to Him brings about health, true happiness, perpetual peace and genuine, lasting love. I can speak this way because I and my family are experiencing all these things in a joyful, deep connection and relationship with God, by means of His wisdom; not any lie-propelling church of falsehood. Almighty God teaches us, by means of His Son, Jesus Christ and by means of His own word in the Bible that he is a God of truth, full of justice, tempered with mercy, and above all, genuine, healing love. God does not lie nor does He break His promises. If anyone claiming to know God is not demonstrating these characteristic qualities, they are false, impostors, and not to be trusted.
However, please do not confuse obedience to God, by HIS right and just rules, as intolerance or hatred. People use these "buzz words" in an attempt to push their own agenda on others, when they know quite well that it's not about hate at all, but rather agreement with God and His opinion on matters. Sadly, it seems that homosexuals want to get married to justify their sexual relationships but the effort is futile, as their sexual relationship will never be justified by God or His people.
faithfulwatcher,
Your claim: "God is very real."
My question: Got evidence?
It makes no difference whether god is real or not, as far as laws go. Our laws are based on policy, as well as the health, safety and welfare of the public. They aren't based on religious bigotry, like other countries that have a religious government like the Taliban.
If anyone has an anti-marriage equality argument that is NOT based on mythology, religion or pure emotion, I haven't heard it yet.
God has NOTHING to do with this issue!!!
Our country was founded on that pesky document called the Constitution NOT on a bible.
SHEESH u people need new material!!
"If anyone has an anti-marriage equality argument that is NOT based on mythology, religion or pure emotion, I haven't heard it yet."
And you won't, Clotho, because there isn't one. The Supreme Court, in the Loving v. Virginia case of 1967, stated that marriage was a right, making it legal for interracial couples to marry. How is this any different? (Pssst... it isn't.) And please, don't come back with anything based on mythology, religion or pure emotion (to quote Clotho).
@faithfulwatcher
You spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah. Can you reference where, in those passages of Sodom & Gamorrah , that it speaks of consentual seme sex relationship being a sin? I am curious. I know God's issues with that city were inhospitality & forced sex (sodomy means r ape), but nothing on gay relationships. Let me know specifically where is says that, thanks
The Easter Bunny once stepped in dog poop in our backyard. My trusted servant forgot to scoop that day.
Yea, verily I say unto you that a man shall have but one nose and one mouth but twice as many eyes and an equal number of ears and externally be bilaterally symmetrical...
the book paradox 1:2
But your problem is that you think that you are exclusively entitled to God only because you've followed the rules laid down by men over hundreds of years. If God is in all things at all times, and if life is eternal; nothing you do as a believer makes anyone else's connection to their maker less sound. If history teaches us anything, it is that God does not need to be praised and worshipped; preachers do. An abundance of life and the world around you are all the praise need be given. So live and let live, and stop thinking you have the only answers to this big mystery. It just makes you look childish and naive; and continued steps down that path of imposing your will will only lead us to a war which you would be destined to lose.
So why are you trying not only to deny the civil rights of gay couples, but also infringe the religious liberty of Episcopalians? They don't hate gays like you do, and seem to have a more enlightened god than you do.
Sounds like what you're really trying to say is "I don't hate fags, it's my imaginary friend who hates fags."
Human rights should never be up for vote!
The Jack Ass has to have a say on everything but if he had been
to law school he would know that the SCOTUS interprets and clarifies
the constitution and what he thinks or feels doesn't mean a thing.
Where is this lion Africans laser like focus on the promises he
made five years ago? Where is a budget plan? How is a 1% reduction
in PROJECTED spending going to gut the nation after he got his tax
increase? It's time he got off the campaign trail and sat down and did some
work.
Didn't President Obama get his law degree at one the best law schools in the nation? Didn't the President teach constitutional law himself? Did your rant make you feel better? Hope your day goes well.
"his tax increase"
which one? You know he's cut taxes and reduced the deficit (per percentage of GDP) don't you?
I implore you to find out the real statistial facts from reputable (not Fox or other right wing sources) before you draw conclussions.
and if you are not, definetly draw your own conclussions from the raw data you find on unbiased websites.
Obama has been much more fiscally conservative than the right wing would like everyone to believe. He has been WAY more thrifty than BUSH for example
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, did you know that? See, it's normal and common for Presidents to raise taxes when there is a recession. They do it because it stimulates the economy. They also don't cut the government because Federal Gov is major source of jobs. Often they also fund public works projects to employ people
This time the Reps in Congress wont' let ANY of the usual (used historically by Republican Presidents as well) means of recovering from a recession. IT DOES REQUIRE SOME SPENDING in the moment. There are many kinds of spending however that has been shown statistically to result in a net GAIN of revenue ..ie is a return on investment
did you know that Republicans in Congress will not even pass THOSE USUAL ways of spending that have a bigger return in the long run? That they have a bigger return per dollar on the spending (for a net overall gain in revenue) does not matter to them
Did you know that the Wall Street Journal (which leans Republican) today said that the austerity measures pushed and applied by Congressional Republicans have slowed our economic recovery?
But...but...but...there are no real statistical facts unless Fox ews reports them. Everything else is a liberal/socialist plot.
no one really knows since he won't show any records. Not really sure he even went to school. Not really sure if he is a citizen. Only president in history that refuses to show anything when asked. He sure can't prove his knowledge of the Constitution by his actions since he has violated it and his Oath since he became the messiah of the US.
Shhhh...go back to sleep... you're just having a nightmare...it's not real. I warned you about going to sleep with Fox News on TV.
You do know that there was no tax increase don't you?
Obama has been much more fiscally conservative than the right wing would like everyone to believe. He has been WAY more thrifty than BUSH...
Funny how you make that statement the go and use Reagan to back it up. Guess you got confused.
How exactly is Obama for fiscally responsible? Bush had only added a total of 5 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama 6 trillion in four. He is slated to add another 4 trillion in the next four years just through obamacare. He will be the first President (used loosely) to have added over 10 Trillion dollars to our debt single handedly.
Oh wait, he will gut Medicare and incorporate it into obamacare. He has already screwed all of our veterans by folding them into medicare and reducing their benefits.
On and on about the worst president we have ever had and that says a lot since we had the likes of Wilson, Johnson, and yes, even Nixon. Funny how he tried to compare himself to Lincoln and FDR. He could hold a candle to either.
A little off topic, but Laurali started it.
The desoto was discontinued by Chrysler some 40 years ago. maybe it's time for you to follow suit...
yo laurino - in your fuc king ignorance you seem to FORGET that the COSTS of IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN were kept "off the FUC KING BOOKS" until Obama became president. SIX $$TRILLION POUNDED DOWN A RATHOLE BY DA SHRUB.
NOW, If you want to be an ignorant RETHUG DINGBAT, that's UP TO YOU, but don't try selling snake oil to educated people.
What you fail to comprehend is that those aren't Obama's tax increases, those are MY tax increases. I am the average American voter, and I voted for Obama in what was a decisive victory, because he promised to represent my point of view, which was shared by the majority - to RAISE TAXES ON THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS.
So when you bash Obama, you are bashing me. I am @!$%#ing sick and tired of being bashed, and am feeling really edgy about the need for bashing back - hard. I think a majority of us are as well. The GOP may want to consider changing their icon from an elephant to a duck, because a majority of your party are obviously too stupid, blind, or both to see what's coming next. My advice to your party faithful? Start wearing helmets - and duck.
Well, if he's a jackass, so are the hundreds of other people (including Republicans) who filed briefs with the Supreme Court on the matter.
The entertainer in chief have an impact on the courts? Naw, I don't think so. He'll be gone in a couple of years; they're around for much longer.
FOUR is a COUPLE? New MATH?
I'm certainly looking forward to Obama's choices to replace the conservatives fossils on the court. He's made great selections so far.
And thank god Romney didn't win - his SCOTUS picks would have been horrible and would have set civil rights back decades.
Hey, if conservatives believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, they can certainly be convinced that four = a couple.
A couple vs. a few, vs. 4 more years? Maybe a little sloppy on my part, but at least no-one seems to take any issues with the "entertainer in chief" part. Guess that even many people who voted for this clown are finally realizing what they actually got. A great speech giver who doesn't know who to be an executive. Move over Jimmy Carter, you got competition.
Yep, one of the very best Presidents in modern history, and someone who understands that all Americans deserve full and equal civil rights.
No wonder Obama won and the dumb bigots in the GOP lost.
Obama is the hypocrite-in-chief. He claims Christianity, swore on a bible that teaches that homosexuality is an abomination.
He he had any b— — — s he would be focusing on strengthening the black family, promoting what marriage really means, a lifetime union between a man and a woman. Instead his policies are creating more irresponsible people.
He is truly vying to be the absolute worst president ever!!!
Why just the black families lets admit it doesn't matter what colour you are most family values left when fart jokes got funny
That is your interpretation. There are Christian denominations that are just fine with same-sex marriage. There also happens to be a major Christian denomination that opposes birth control and divorce, yet we allow both. Religion can't be used to set public policy. If you'd rather that it was, I suggest moving to Iran.
Lonesome your fight is with those straight white christians that can't seem to keep a marriage together for 3 years.
what marriage really means, a lifetime union between a man and a woman.
So you want to ban divorce also?
so, Lonesome - does your one braincell get lonesome for some friends?
"He is truly vying to be the absolute worst president ever!!!"
LOL. Sorry but this Phi Beta Kappa History major is seeing signs that he is going to go down as one of the best Presidents ever. By the time this recognition happens, you will be in your rocking chair and your grandchildren will be wondering how you could ever have thought what Obama was doing was in any way wrong. They will read how brave & compassionate & determined he was, will be shocked that their friend's dad's once were legally forbidden to marry, and wish they could have been alive during such a great President's terms.
Obama is a UCC member, and they support marriage equality. They have a far better god than you do.
Lonesome says it all. No, I don't mean he's right... I mean it's obvious he's lonesome.
Lonesome, if you had any BALLS, you would just write the word BALLS. Is that such a bad word to you that you can't even say it out loud? No wonder you're lonesome. What woman would want to handle a man's b— — — — s when he can't even say the word. Oh that's right... God is listening, and you fear God.
The only thing the Bible reinforces to me on a daily basis is how ignorant and childlike its believers are.
BTW folks, I see the tired old argument of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." If your god is against homosexuality, why does it allow children to be born with ambiguous genitalia (True hermaphroditism)?
Too, if it hates same sex sexual relations, why does it allow feral animals to engage in such activities? In fact, such behavior has been observed in at least 1500 species.
Will hermaphroditic children and feral animals that engage in same-sex relations, to to Hell?
What? No rightie wants to tackle the above questions? I'm really not surprised. You see, understanding nature requires education.
The questions answer themselves. Both are 'abnormalities' outside the norm. Even if we leave God out of it (which I am sure you athiest will appreciate), Since it is a scentific (although skewed since there are still many living in the closet) assertion that less than 3% of the population claims to be 'gay' it is proof that it it is outside the norm.
Since there is no scientific proof (as you atheist rely on so much) that Homosexuality is nothing more then a 'sexual preference', they do not deserve any more consideration than a pedophile or someone that practices sex with animals. Not saying gays are animals, just that there is a comparison to the 'preference'.
If you want to practice your preference, go to a place that honors it and leave the place that doesn't. Simple. You should have to live by the laws where you live. If you don't like them, change them or move. Simple.
Don't expect everyone to accept your abnormal behaviour when most of the country doesn't. You are free to do what you want to where it is allowed. Unlike the rest of us that are actually protected under the Constitution to practice our Faith without government intervention.
Feral animals - an accurate description of the gay lifestyle. Thank you for that analogy. Now head off to a bathhouse, find your life partnet for the night, and spread some AIS.
N, of course you missed the point of the questions. I expected the equivocation. The point is that practicing YOUR faith does not mean you can impose that faith on others. You like the freedom the Constitution gives you, which includes no sanctions against your pursuit of happiness. Why do you deny others that same right? Who are you to tell others how to be happy?
"Since there is no scientific proof (as you atheist rely on so much) that Homosexuality is nothing more then a 'sexual preference', they do not deserve any more consideration than a pedophile or someone that practices sex with animals. Not saying gays are animals, just that there is a comparison to the 'preference'."
You seem to have little knowledge of the arguments. First, you totally ignore my point in my last post, which is Why would your god allow such behavior in feral species and allow children to be born with ambiguous genitalia?" You seem to brush it aside by saying they represent a minority. I have a flash for you. The Bill of Rights was written for the minority! It is a protection against the "tyranny of the majority." Just because a group is in a small minority does not give you the right to suppress their right marry someone they love. Secondly, you are setting up a straw man by claiming that I call sexuality a "preference." You couldn't be farther from the truth. If you believe that, then you will admit that at some time in your life, you were just as sexually attracted to others of your same gender as much as the other, right?
One point of my previous post was that such activity is genetically based. You missed that point as well. So, why don't you answer my questions? Why does your god allow children to be born that way, and why does he allow same-sex sexuality in feral species?
Correction and addition to my last post: You are claiming that sexuality is a preference and there is no evidence of homosexuality's genetic bases. You need to reread my post. The fact that children are born with ambiguous genitalia IS proof. Ambiguous genitalia is a phenotype! It is a physical expression of one's genes. Can you not see that one can be a geneotype as well--the genes express a desire for same sex love, but not physically apparent?
Besides, even if ten people out of ten million were of a different belief, you have no right to deny them that belief anymore that they can deny you yours. THAT's FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
atelier, and you, too, evade answering the questions. Why must you be so deceptive? Because you haven't the education to answer the questions, and you want to broadcast your ignorance. That, incidentally, is why Romney lost the election.
It is not possible to answer your questions on 'why does God allow..' since you would not accept the answer in any case. Your claims that just because someone was born with an abnormality is proof that it must be normal is contridictory.
I didn't say you said anything about 'preference'. I say it is a preference because what else can it be? No scientific proof exist that it is Genetic. If so, educate the rest of us and show the proof.
If it isn't based on sexuality, why is it an issue at all? No I have never been physically attracted to another person of the same sex. Which is the basis of homosexuality in the first place.
If you claim otherwise you lie since it is very possible to have friendships with same sex individuals and enjoy each others company without wanting to be physically involved. The difference between straight and gay is that physical attraction and involvement. That said, what makes your movement any different from say a man or women that is physically attracted to say a 10 year old or a sheep?
As for 'the genes express a desire' where is that study? How do you prove a 'gene' can express an emotion? There is no science yet that can trace a physical (gene) item to an emotional expression. Where is the 'gene' that links homosexual behaviour to a person? They have tried for many years to find that and can't.
I can go on and on about that since there is no evidence anywhere that proves Homosexuals are a varient of the human species.
There are abnormalaties everywhere throughout life. That does not mean they are to be considered normal or it would not be an abnormality.
That aside, there are two sexes. Male and Female. This is true for all species. If homosexuality was to be a normal part of civilization, we would either be both or we would each have the ability to procreate. Not so.
I don't have anything agains the people that practice that lifestyle except to let them know it isn't for me and I beleive it is wrong. I still have friends that are in spite of my beliefs because I too have weaknesses that are probably not acceptable to them and can still be civil.
My main point to you in the first post is that if you choose to do something that is not accepted where you live, then you have a right to go where it is accepted. You cannot impose your will (as you say I was trying to do) on those around you. Since the majority of the people in Califormia voted not to accept that 'lifestyle' as is their right, just simply leave and go where it is.
BTW, there is no 'Freedom of Conscience' in the Constituion. I also do not condone using drugs or smoking pot, but there are obviously places that allow that. I do smoke, but obviously that is not an acceptable behaviour and there are actually laws against that. Go figure....
N, "
"I didn't say you said anything about 'preference'. I say it is a preference because what else can it be? No scientific proof exist that it is Genetic. If so, educate the rest of us and show the proof.
"If it isn't based on sexuality, why is it an issue at all? No I have never been physically attracted to another person of the same sex. Which is the basis of homosexuality in the first place."
Yes, I corrected that in the next post. Apparently you missed it. You say that an ambiguous sexual phenotype isn't proof sexuality is genetically based and can be skewed one way or another as a geneotype? Would you kindly go look up "phenotype and geneotype?" Educate yourself. You don't know what you are talking about.
And you say that there "is no proof," even though I stated the above and that it is a common trait in the animal kingdom?" What is the matter with your reading comprehension? I'm asking YOU why your god permits these things if it hates same-sex relation? You are still evading the questions.
You imply that a homosexual is trying to impose his or her will on others? How is anyone marrying someone of their same sex whom they love imposing on the rest of the community??? Just because YOU are bothered by what someone else does in their home is NOT imposing anything on YOU. You, and you alone, are allowing yourself to be incensed be what others do. If you don't believe in drinking wine, but your neighbor does drink it, are you saying that he should not live beside you?
And, BTW, freedom if conscience IS a major part of the First Amendment. It is enshrined in the Establishment Clause, and it means one cannot impose their religion on others by law. Read the meaning underlying this clause, first drafted by Jefferson. You will find it in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
AND, again, you equivocate and ignore the questions. Reason? You can't answer them.
I guess you really do live in a 'hobby world' and not the real one.
The 1st ammendment has nothing to do with 'one cannot impose their religion on others by law', It is to prevent the Goverment from establishing religion as it did in England and was purposely drafted to stop persecution of religion. Again picking and choosing and out of context.
Where did I mention anything about someone imposing their belief?
'My main point to you in the first post is that if you choose to do something that is not accepted where you live, then you have a right to go where it is accepted. You cannot impose your will (as you say I was trying to do) on those around you. Since the majority of the people in Califormia voted not to accept that 'lifestyle' as is their right, just simply leave and go where it is.
Since the voters in the state obviously feel it was imprtant to them and make it law, you simply cannot force them to change their mind or 'impose' it on them. If it is so acceptable in your world, how did that happen?
I will answer you question on 'why God..?'. God created man and gave him 'Free Will'. Man chose to ignore God and go his own way. God warned man of the consequences of his actions, but man ignored him. Man became so depraved, God wiped him out (Flood) and saved a few to start over. Again man did his own thing and because of God's promise not to do what he did before, he provided another option for man to accept or reject (Jesus Christ). We are now in the last stage of His plan and we have the choice to accept what He sent Christ to do or not.
God is not preventing bad things happening for a few reasons. One to show us how depraved this world is in contrast to what we can have in Heaven. Another is to come to the knowledge we have sinned and need redemption, and that He provided that through His Son. Bottom line is that He is wanting us all to turn to Him and enjoy a much better life after this one is over as He has said throught the Bible.
I realize you are not going to accept what I just said, and that it is a very simplistic answer, but the point is God made it simple so the ignorant can understand.
I do not hate homosexuals. I only dislike what they practice. I am not to judge anyone since I myself am far from perfect, but I also do not have to accept something that is against what God expects. I am not trying to preach to anyone, but you asked the question. I have enough on my own plate to make right.
This whole thread is about an issue currently in the court and not about Faith. Taking it out of context is something you all do to justify your position or to further persecute people of Faith. Don't bring God into the arguement and then reject it when someone provides the answer. If you want to keep in the context of the conversation great, but when you invite the topic, be prepared for it.
In now way can you even use Faith to justify the acceptance of this topic. You would ultimatley lose if God should choose to inject His will. Be careful what you invite in.
It's so hard to fathem how a thinking mind can be so illogical. The government makes laws. The people influence the government to make laws. Lawmakers are people. Most people are Christian. In counties and states around the nation, people have their government make laws against what they believe is against their religion. Where did you go to school? I want to be certain I never hire anyone from there. You didn't read the link I provided. You don't do your own research. You are a typical Tea-Party member, wanting the government to keep their hands off your medicaid (metaphor).
And my main point about forcing your will on others, is that showing disdain for the actions of other is YOUR problem, not theirs. You have the insensitivity and mental problem that allows yourself to be incensed by what someone else does that you believe to be against YOUR religion. Everybody everywhere can go elsewhere, but pressuring someone in your neighborhood to leave because they don't think like you is as wrong as others pressuring you to leave.
So, what would you do if a same sex couple moved in next door to you? What would you do to show your hatred for their life style?
"I will answer you question on 'why God..?'. God created man and gave him 'Free Will'. Man chose to ignore God and go his own way. God warned man of the consequences of his actions, but man ignored him. Man became so depraved, God wiped him out (Flood) and saved a few to start over. Again man did his own thing and because of God's promise not to do what he did before, he provided another option for man to accept or reject (Jesus Christ). We are now in the last stage of His plan and we have the choice to accept what He sent Christ to do or not.
"God is not preventing bad things happening for a few reasons. One to show us how depraved this world is in contrast to what we can have in Heaven. Another is to come to the knowledge we have sinned and need redemption, and that He provided that through His Son. Bottom line is that He is wanting us all to turn to Him and enjoy a much better life after this one is over as He has said throught the Bible.
"I realize you are not going to accept what I just said, and that it is a very simplistic answer, but the point is God made it simple so the ignorant can understand."
Hmm, interesting. Aside from the fact that you obviously still believe the myth of creationism and reject the voluminous amount of evidence supporting evolution, you still have not answered the questions. To answer questions is to actually address them. I am talking about PHYSICAL genetic effects, and showing that if one can have PHYSICAL genetic effects, one can have behavioral genetic effects as well. You are completely ignoring the questions of: if your god hates same-sex affectionate and sexual relationships, then why are some children born with ambiguous genitalia and at least 1500 feral species (WHO DON'T HAVE FREE CHOICE), engage in same gender sexual relations? You have not answered these questions. THINK MAN!
on can always tell a "believer" ONE JUST CANNOT TELL THEM MUCH. They are inherently irrationally BRAINWASHED
A clean brain is a gooood brain...wash your brain regularly... speak with the mythical sky fairy..
if you hear voices in your head, you're OK as long as you have the good sense to seek mental health assistance
So left-handed people should be denied civil rights because they too are outside the norm?
LOL....sounds like you don't understand what civil rights are, or why the Bill of Rights was written.
i think that denying somebody equal rights is the 1st line drawn in the sand for" war" or confrontation.
A rebuttal/ response back only indicates the certainty of belief in their cause and points out your own error in sensibility, fairness.
SSM is here for good--- in either sense of meaning.
Didn't the President campaign in 2007 on marriage should only be between man and woman?
Yep, you're confused. He did not campaign on that issue.
Obama publicly opposed Prop h8 and campaigned on a promise to help repeal DADT and DOMA.
Thank you to the LGBT community of American citizens who are blazing the trail for remaining discriminated demographics to follow in.
Freethinkers! Take a page from the LGBT successes and Come Out, Stand Out, Speak Out! There is safety in numbers!
I support marriage for same sex couples.
freethinkers do need to stand up but like dawkins said most are afraid. most dont truly see the harm in believing in religion. most actually "believe in belief" even if they dont. but it wont be easy my friend not at all.
pittsburgh,
Thanks for your comments. I am very happy to see the Obama Administration clearly on the right side of history with this action. I can't imagine how the LGBT community must feel but I am happy for them and their loved ones. I am also happy that children of LGBT parents are living to see days like these!
Move to a Moslem, Hindu, African country and see how far you get. Bradley Manning demonstartes what the value of a homosexual is in the military; the Catholic Church showed what homosexual priests can do; the Boy Scouts have hundreds of cases where they trusted homosexuals.
Atheist-6939529: Post evidence to the contrary, if you can. In the interim, this is at its core immoral and contrary to Christian cptr brliefs. Please do not force the Nation into subjugation to immorality. Choose civil unions or slip quietly into the closet.
Atheist-6939529: Post evidence to the contrary, if you can. In the interim, this is at its core immoral and contrary to Christian believers. Please do not force the Nation into subjugation to immorality. Choose civil unions or slip quietly into the closet.
Maran8th8,
Numerous times I've pointed out that Jesus, the God of Christianity, never spoke a single word of condemnation of homosexuality. He did, however, condemn divorce. Therefore, all religious types who condemn homosexual love can't call themselves Christian, but may refer to themselves as Old Testament followers.
So? How many times must it be explained that "morality" has no place in our secular government?
And no one is "forcing" the Nation into anything. We're just trying to make sure everybody is treated equally.
atelier - the Scouts' problem is with pedophiles, not that you would know the difference, eh?
MNPat: You are correct, Jesus Christ never condemned homosexuality but you can read Romans, Chapter 1.
The government has no business trying to legislate morality. As soon as a person or group talks about "good versus evil" and tries to use the legal system to enforce their point of view, I know that person or group is against liberty. Law exists to enforce social order, not someone's personal concept of good or evil.
A point of contention, clarification.
Civilizations legislates morality all the time. We the People. That's what civilizations do. We promote the common good. We are a nation of laws. These laws address just about every aspect of the human experience, even moral spheres such as what is permissible (right) or illegal (wrong). Child labor is illegal for many reasons, not least of which because our society deems it immoral, wrong. Same with every civil liberty protected in the Bill of Rights and beyond.
What is NOT allowed, and is indeed prohibited by the US Constitution, is giving any religious-faith a preferential bias in American Law.
...but faith groups try to subvert this prohibition all.the.time.
"The government has no business trying to legislate morality." Ok lets just go rape and murder everything in sight! The government shouldn't stop that should they?
Bad example. Child labor was legal until the beginning of this century. I suspect it would be legal again if the GOP could get the current laws repealed.
Sounds like you're saying that we should be able to make illegal any activity of which you personally disapprove. In that case I want public use of cell phones made illegal. I remember when states were allowed to criminalize any homosexual sexual activity. The same activities were legal between hetrosexuals.
I remember when interracial marriages were illegal. What's your position about that? For that matter, slavery is acceptable according to the Bible. How about we bring that back? It's apparently moral.
Severed Head in a jar,
Thanks for the criticism. I could have worded that comment better. Steven Pinker's excellent work, The Better Angels of Our Nature is the source for my optimism. We are likely living in the most peaceful era of our species existence. Violence has been decreasing in human civilzations for a long time, particularly in the last 400 years.
Rape and murder are not a matter of morality, but of depriving other individuals of their civil rights. You don't need a religious underpinning to designate certain actions as illegal.
and yet state sanctioned murder is the very basis of "warfare"
Steve is exactly right - the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing any cult's sharia laws.
"War". That's the problem with the far right; if you don't agree with them, they assume you "hate" them and are out to do them harm.
oh, I generally "hate" them but similar to a slug, as long as they don't cause me harm, I'm not going to do them harm.
They can be like a turd and go lay in the yard and decompose....
I thought Obama was gay, you mean Michelle is actually a woman?
Imbecile--10
Funny--0
Great job!!
you need to give him a MUCH higher IMBECILE rating on that one and the funny is WAY BELOW ZERO...
Weirdscience: If you can not tell the difference you might want to try psychiatric counseling..........
to all the people who are complaining about obama's brief and how he should just stay out of it, how come you are not saying anything about the brief sent in and signed by 130 republicans and businesses in support of gay marriage? glaring example of why people think its not the policies you hate about Obama but the man himself that you hate.
also discrimination is wrong. blocking you from discriminating is not persecution.
This is a common claim. Yet, the opponents of marriage equality never explain how allowing MORE people to marry in any way interferes with the "traditional" family? The much-hyped family with a father, mother and 2.2 children can continue. No one has to marry a person of the same sex unless they want to.
With over 50% of marriages ending in divorce in the first 1 to 2 years of marriage, seems to me the SSM opponents should be working on solutions to solve THAT problem rather than throwing rocks at another group of people seeking the same equality.
But, well..you know. They will use this as a convenient patsy to point at as the major reason so many heterosexual marriages are failing. They always needs someone to point the finger at and blame for their own problems.
It's because there are only so many marriage licenses to go around and for every gay couple that gets married, a nice wholesome bigoted Southern Baptist couple gets denied because they ran out of licenses.
Or something like that.
Skrekk ... that's a possibility. Or, gay couples will reserve all the best dates for reception halls, leaving heterosexual couples stuck with Elk Lodges. Faced with the prospect of beginning married life under the head of a dead elk that they didn't personally shoot with their AK-47, they instead decide to call the whole thing off. The birth rate will plummet, leaving the military severely understaffed. The godless Russians, Chinese and French will take that opportunity to invade. The French quickly surrender, but we lose to the hordes of horny Chinese who, because China's one-child policy has resulted in an imbalance of the male-female ratio, desire to ravish the flower of American womanhood. This results in the destruction of Western Civilization. And, that's how gay marriage destroys traditional marriage.
That was well done, Barry.
Tea-publican heads exploding everywhere!!!
Ohhh, the humanity!!
You get the beer Will, I've got the popcorn! This is going to be more animated than Ice Age! LOL
where's the guy who cleans up after the elephants in the parade - the one who sweeps up the elephant sh it?
There is something more important than the economy and the budget right now. When a group of American people cannot do something such as marry, which is basic human right, because of something they cannot control (sexual orientation) than there is something terrible wrong with our country. Civil rights should trump everything. If we restrict the rights of a few because of something that they have no control over, how are we the land of the free?
So where does this 'basic human right' come from? Not in our Constituion. Since you don't believe in God or the Bible, can you show me anywhere that it is a RIGHT!
You may say the same for traditional marriage, however that has been accepted for more years than you have been around. Just by practice and acceptance for thousands of years shows that people throughout history are willing to accept the Man and Women concept, but never the man on man or women on women.
I bet there is already a movement brewing somewhere that will push for rights to perform incest, make pedophilia legal between consenting children and adults, and animal husbandry (pun intended).
Absolutely right and I can't wait for the homosexual community to start the push to legalize sex with barnyard animals.
People used these very same arguments to stop interracial marriage for decades, and yet those laws were struck down and society still stands. You are on the wrong side of history.
The parts of the country where barnyard sex is big are also those that make the most noise against homosexuality. If you see a push to legalize bestiality, it's not going to come from the gay community.
"So where does this 'basic human right' come from?"
Loving v. Virginia, 1967.
Next?
Since you choose to use the race issue as your defense, how does that work? Are homosexuals a seperate 'race'?
Since Loving v. Virginia, was simply correcting the discrimination between races it has no play in this discussion.
Race is not the issue although I know progressives always pull it out when they are threatend. No good for the 'Basic Human Right' regarding the actual issue of Gay marraige.
Now if you can actually show a court case that supports you issue we would not even be having this discussion and MSNBC would not have anything to report.
N Laurino,
Loving v. Virginia established that marriage was a right. In that case the discrimination was about race, a protected status.
In the case of SSM, the discrimination is about gender, another protected class. Therefore, it still applies.
The Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia didn't limit its declaration of marriage as a basic right to heterosexuals.
It also didn't expand it to include homosexuals. It mentions nothing about a 'protected class'. It was about race only. Even if it was about a 'protected class', where is the case law stating 'gender' as a protected class?
I guess that is why this whole thing is in from of the SCOTUS in the first place. If the case had merit, why didn't the most liberal court in the land uphold Prop 9?
We will see. Just don't get to down when it goes upside down for you. Find some land in Washington State or another State that accepts your position and rest in peace.
Thanks, Hambone and Barry, for getting to N before I could.
N, when the LGBT community are allowed to marry the one they love, as hetero's do, find some land in Iran or some other theocracy that accepts your position and rest in peace.
Have a good day.
don't be afraid atelier - they aren't interested in your sorry @$$...
and N - you would benefit from getting your head out of your anal orifice. maybe IF you didn't smell sh it all the time ...
N Laurino
In 1976, in Craig v. Boren, the SCOTUS presumed a law unconstitutional unless it is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest–in cases of gender-based discrimination. Sex-based discrimination is also made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Acto of 1963. So, yes, gender/sex is a protected class.
Also, a US District court overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.
On February 7, 2012, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit is generally considered to be the most liberal, so not sure what you're referring to there.
Additionally, the Court in Loving didn't mention same sex marriage in it's decision as that was not the question in front of the court in that case-that was about race. That is how they decide cases-the issue presented.
"I can't wait for the homosexual community to start the push to legalize sex with barnyard animals."
Why would the homosexuals push that issue. It's only the straight conservative christian republicians that obsess over s ex with animals on these threads.
I don't think you understand how civil rights work in this country. They aren't "expanded" or "granted", because the people already inherently have those rights. What the government needs to do (or in this case you bigots) is to find at least a rational basis to deny those rights to a class of persons.
So far you bigots haven't found a reason which has convinced the courts, since you've lost every single one of these cases.
These selfish same-sex couples have no qualms about denying a mother or a father to a child.
"So, moms, who was my sperm donor?"
"So, dads, who did you rent a womb from and which one of you am I really related to?"
As an adoptive parent I find your comment offensive, ignorant, and as far from Christian as any other in this discussion. As the neighbor of a gay couple with two well-adjusted bright kids I find your comment provably incorrect and hateful. However, what else can one expect from a person who uses the name of a hateful figure from Greek mythology as his label?
MNPat...I'm with you. I have 2 adopted children and the statement "which one of you am I really related to?" is offensive and disgusting. My children are "really" related to both of their adoptive parents. And I too am friends with a lovely lesbian couple who adopted 2 children through foster care. Their daughter's biological mother used heroin while she was pregnant so that the baby was born addicted, then fought my friends to get the baby back and have her live in a homeless shelter. This woman is a better parent?
Actually the gay couple I know have two biological children, fathered by a gay friend who, along with the two lesbian moms, are involved in the kids' lives and are thrilled that both kids are heterosexual, because they won't have the difficulties their parents experienced as teens. Quite a contrast to hetero parents who condemn, shun, and disown children with same sex orientation.
nah - he spelled it incorrectly - he is PRO "CRUSTY" - from the SIMPSONS although he sounds more like his RWNJreligionazi neighbor
It's hard to make a case that every choice to have a child isn't a selfish one. Almost all of us are genetically programmed to be selfish in this regard.
I'm sure chief justice John Roberts will find Procrustes' argument persuasive.........especially since his kids were adopted. Looks like 6-3 for equality!
President Barack Obama is the best president EVER! God bless America and hooray for equality. Opponents will soon have to move on to someone else to bully. This is important for our country. No one should try and minimize this unless they are personally affected by it. This is important gesture from our government for many American families who are not close-minded and value freedom and justice for minorities.
I am going to have my congress-critters create a law that says:
But, But But......
You see, your interfering is just just as bad and wrong as mine.
MORONS !
hey - if Myra Breckenridge were Siamese twins, we'd have a bi-sexual built for TWO
Straight couples deny a mother and father to children all the time. Give me a break!
Robert...I hate to pop your balloon, but there are no substantive studies that clearly show any detriment to a child under SSM circumstances.
@Leave ... I think that you and Robert are on the same side.
Woops! Speed reading gets me once in a while. Sorry Robert.
Although symbolic , I am impressed with the administration's stand. Now, if we can get some type of resolution on abortion, we would take the two factors that have weighed in with way too much import and money , for the last 12 years, in presidential elections. Then, doing something constructive about education and Social Security..oh wait, then what would be the true difference between the two parties. Would we see the Great and Powerful Wizard of OZ is just a man behind a curtain? By that, I mean the "substance" would be taken out of these issues, along with the cottage industry lobbyist and Americans might finally get their country back. We cannot afford to keep having the sway of these issues play on role in who sits in the Oval Office.
Anyone who claims that the Bible is the reason that we as a nation should not allow same sex marriage is picking and choosing what parts of the bible to follow. I garan-@!$%#ing tee it. Follow everything down to the letter and you'd be living in a cave. For example, "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19. That piece of Fiction is total absurdity.
And when you call them on it they simply refuse to respond. I see that here in every thread that involves gays and/or gay rights. You'll see them bring up Leviticus as justification, yet when you ask them about the other prohibitions they're silent. That's because they have no answer.
Ask these Christians where in the Bible Jesus personally condemned homosexuality and again they have no answer, because the answer is that Jesus was silent on the subject. He condemned divorce but never spoke of same sex relationships.
Actually that is the approach the wacko environmentalists would like us to follow to minimize environmental impacts.
God condemd it and punished it. Read about Sodom and Gomorah in Genesis. Sin is sin even if you don't believe it.
so all citizens in sodom and gomorah were JUST gay?
Not in the version I heard...RAPE, extortion, slavery, greed, killing...you know acts against another by taking their consent away...
so all citizens in sodom and gomorah were JUST gay?
Not in the version I heard...RAPE, extortion, slavery, greed, killing...you know acts against another by taking their consent away...
N Laurino,
According to the New Testament, Jesus challenged the Old Testament when he argued with the Temple scholars at the age of twelve. Jesus, aka Christ, never spoke against homosexuality. He didn't quote or preach using Genesis and other Old Testament fairy tales. Why do you?
Wow, you call the Old Testament 'fairy tales', but seem to believe the New? taking that position I can only assume you don't actually believe any of it so using one part to back your issue up is really moot.
Jesus as the Son of God never contradicted anything in the Old Testament and never challenged it. His 'preaching' in the temple was to show the Pharesis and other leaders his knowledge of Gods law.
If you read all of the Bible, Jesus always quoted things from the Old, using his teachings to show the leaders how worng they were in their interpretaion of Scripture.
I can see where you are confused about who and what Jesus was, but do not disrespect God or Him by trying to argue your pathetic cause and justify it as 'acceptable' to God or Jesus.
As far as Sodom and Gomorrah, you are correct that it wasn't totally about Homo's, but that was the reason. All the other things you mentioned came from the people that thought they could build their way to Heaven. Just as most of todays society does.
book, chapter, verse
specifically, the story has to do with free will...not "build a way to heaven", heck I don't even think heaven was a factor in that story.