Civil unions offer the same level of equality, so it seems rather odd that they must push the religious aspect to the union despite the opposition. More importantly, no one truly wants to be in this position. This isn't something people truly want to be. No one aspires to it. No one is truly proud of it. It isn't something parents hope and pray their kids will be when they grow up. Worse, it will always be something made fun of and used as a pejorative in some way.

nzpete

So... We give civil unions to gays/lesbians with the same rights as married heterosexual couples? Umm no. We tried this in the 1960s. African Americans were not allowed to drink from the same fountains, use the same doors, schools, text books, etc as White Americans. They were 'separate but UNEQUAL"

Either everyone has the right to be married, or everyone has civil unions, period.

First, Civil unions for gay couples aren't allowed in many states. Second: civil unions rarely do have all the same benefits as marriage even in the places where they are allowed. Third: what you propose is that homosexuals get placed in a separate, but equal form of relationship status. The problem is that separate is inherently unequal, as if two things are really held equally there is no legitimate cause for the government to hold them to different classifications and names. A marriage is not a religious thing, it is a contract through the State. Any religious associations of marriage are strictly personal and have nothing to do with what couples are suing for.

And Roger, yes, that does make you homophobic, and no, I will not solely blame society, because at the end of the day you are responsible for your own behaviour, ignorance, and mentality. If you think gays should be treated as sub-human and given restricted rights based on your own preconceptions you are a bigot, plain and simple, and no amount of blaming society absolves you of that.

nzpete

Have I? Discrimination is discrimination is it not? I know many African Americans who feel adn think the same way. Marriage is NO agenda, its called 'Equal Marriage" rights for Americans. How is that an agenda. Civil UNIONS are not the same thing as marriage. If it is, then you are no longer married as heterosexual, and are now in a civil union as well.

Are you a parent of a gay child? If you are not, do not SPEAK for them, they have their own voice.

We are ALL equals in the eyes of the law are we not?

Actually, those types of dolls are much more commonly purchased by heterosexuals. Can you show any source that support your accusation that it is in any way tied to homosexuality? Last I checked, every reputable organization and authority on psychology asserted that pedophilia is no more common in LGBT than they are in non LGBT. On what grounds, therefor, does this have to do with anything LGBT?

Secondly, they are actually illegal, considered child pornography, in most of the U.S.

"We are ALL equals in the eyes of the law are we not?"**

**these rights are subject to consideration of change, on event of any nature, based on race, fame and wealth. Your rights also vary from State to State, North, South, East and West.

United we are stand, divided on 1001 different laws, rules and regulations we are the United States of America. Do you know how many laws there are in the United States ? Don't feel bad, no one does, and ignorance of the law is not a defense.

to "itsa"...

don't bother bantering back and forth with nzpete. regardless of his oh-so-delicate wording, his homophobia shines through loud and clear. it's particularly interesting how he keeps repeating that being gay is not something to be proud of (i.e. shame?) and that parents "hope and pray" that their children won't turn out that way. although I myself am straight, my best friend in the world is gay, as is my brother in law, as well are several of my (straight) daughter's friends (whose parents are all proud of their children). so save your breath itsa, because you're fighting a losing battle. to quote will rogers: "when ignorance gets started, it knows no bounds."

regards, jo.

Boromir

**these rights are subject to consideration of change, on event of any nature, based on race, fame and wealth. Your rights also vary from State to State, North, South, East and West.

No they aren't subject to 'consideration'. True, "money" can buy justice.. We see just how much money churches are throwing into the arena to prevent gay marriage, but it will not win out.

We are ALL EQUAL in the eyes of the law.

jopageri

Thanks for the comment. Having read through a few comments from nzpete, I have to believe you are correct". Its pretty sad that we have that form of ignorance in this country in 2013.

We are ALL equals in the eyes of the law are we not?

They have been selling that since the beginning but in application the answer is no. There are laws that make us unequal and laws created that are strange but decidedly for the benefit of society. Gay marriage isn't about being equal it is about money from the Federal government and paying less tax. If you just want a paper saying you are married go to your printer. If you want a church to marry you start a church that will do that and everything else your lifestyle wants, everybody else does.

I find it very interesting that the ones that claim to be patriots are in favor for rights being dened to American citizens. No matter what information or facts, they still believe its a choice. I guess it will tke their kids being gay for them to change thei position. 50 years from now they will look so stupid, like they did with the last marriage battle

Here comes the goobers with their fictional book. I wonder how its going to work them in a court of law?????????

Dick-2100935

We are ALL equals in the eyes of the law are we not?

They have been selling that since the beginning but in application the answer is no. There are laws that make us unequal and laws created that are strange but decidedly for the benefit of society. Gay marriage isn't about being equal it is about money from the Federal government and paying less tax. If you just want a paper saying you are married go to your printer. If you want a church to marry you start a church that will do that and everything else your lifestyle wants, everybody else does.

Let's step into a court of law, and then you present your case against gay marriage, and I'll present mine. It is NOT ABOUT money from the federal government, or paying less taxes. If it is, then heterosexuals ONLY get married for financial reasons right? Hmm. I thought marriage was about 'love, commitment....etc", However, I guess with a 53% divorce rate among hetero married couples, that must be wrong.

Churches DO MARRY GAY COUPLES today. Gay marriage is a civil right in the United States of America. Please present a 'legal' reason why gays/lesbians should not be married.

P.S. Please please represent the anti gay marriage argument to the US Supreme Court. It would mean a landslide.

Walter: You need to tone it down a bit you are going on way to long. Simple truths deserve simple answers, and the entire Solar System is behind the facts of human creation. In my opinion it is a Universal one.

itsa...

"Are you a parent of a gay child? If you are not, do not SPEAK for them, they have their own voice."

Thankfully, no. If I were, however, I would be sad. I would still love them, but I would be very sad. Again, it isn't something folks are proud of, or something one aspires to become.

I dont read fiction but i do enjoy the story about the pregnant virgin, the world being populated thru incest, and how if it wasnt for eve eating the forbidden fruit we would all be naked right now lol. Harry Potter is more believable

Veronica25

I dont read fiction but i do enjoy the story about the pregnant virgin, the world being populated thru incest, and how if it wasnt for eve eating the forbidden fruit we would all be naked right now lol.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Read This:

www.end-times-prophecy.org/bible-prophecy-and-probability.html

and get back to me and explain how YOUR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE CAN DEBUNK THE BIBLE.

==============================================================

Harry Potter is more believable

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

NOW THERE'S SOME FICTION FOR YOU,

DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR SMARTER THAN GOD?

WHAT TO YOU THINK HAPPENS ONCE YOU DIE?

GIVE SOME REASONS YOU FEEL THIS WAY AND EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!!

I dont believe in your god but its your right to do so and its my right not to believe. You christians are becoming worst than Jehovah's witnesses. I had to go into the Jehovah's witness protection program because its all so annoying and is commonly used for hate and denying rights in this country

The "legal" reason is that marriage has always been defined and accepted as a union (that is ultimately consummated) between a man and a woman. Where is the comparable discrimination of homosexuals that is anything like that experienced by blacks historically!?!?!?

If this was truly all about "marriage rights," then the gay-lesbian agenda would also then be pushing for other marriage rights -- such as no restrictions on the number of "consenting adults" in the marriage union (polygamy), or lifting restrictions on close-blood relatives marrying, or parents marrying children, or an intelligent minor (ie. 16 or 17-year olds) from wedding, etc.

The liberals have destroyed marriage first with the widespread acceptable and ease-of-ability for divorce. Now, the masses mock what marriage can be anyway, so "why not have gays 'marry'?" Of course, homosexual marriages are already a mockery and have led to divorces...a crock.

Some things in life are expected: death, taxes, women bear children, the sun rises in the east, and marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why are there so many haters out there regarding what marriage is?

Marriage in the US is NOT a religious act. It is a civil act that requires a license. You may have a religious official preform the ceremony but you can also have a judge do it and there is no difference whatsoever. See: regarding what the bible actually says about "marriage".

Gee, despite thousands of years of exhaustive research and study by some of the world's greatest minds, there still exist many mysteries surrounding spirituality and religion......up until today, that is. Now, we are suddenly enlightened by the brilliant and self assured Veronica; how fortunate we are!

To 1man + 1woman = marriage

You apparently have things confused. You said, 'How would you like it if your homosexual neighbor took a picture of your 8 year old boy and had (a doll) made for him'. Your neighbor is homosexual, not a pedophile. With your reasoning, I should keep my granddaughters away from you. You have a wife which means you sleep with women, so naturally you want to sleep with young prepubescent girls. Since you like females, and girls are females, you MUST want them very very young. Sooooo.......then we must assume your wife wants young boys. So I must keep my grandson away from your house too. Your wife might take a picture of him and have a doll made.

By your reasoning, straight female teachers shouldn't have boys in class, and straight male teachers shouldn't have girls in class. They like sex with older versions so they must want sex with young ones too right? Or would you say that you don't want sex with 8 year old girls, because you're not a PEDOPHILE!!!! I hope you're not.

Lol Walter youre funny

Lol Walter youre funny

First-The one article is about public officials rushing to support gay marriage. Where are the public officials rushing in (like Republicans) opposing gay marriage??

Second--If the supreme court is going to change the law to allow gay's to marry, then lets open up to allow two concenting adult brothers to marry. Lets allow to adult children to marry and have children, two first cousins to marry, father and adult daughter to marry and have children, mother and adult son to marry and have children, two adult sisters, a guy can have more than one wife, a woman can have more than one husband, parent can marry more than one adult child etc. Lets not discriminate, and yes I am a bigot, before you start calling me one. All of this is sick, and wrong!!!!!!!Because if the court rules on just gay's being alowed to marry then we will be back in court saying, well you opened the door to allow gay's to marry but what about all these other situations above. SICK-SICK-SICK

Walter P Orielly Jr.,

So far the only thing you've been proving through your rantings is that religion, and a belief in some magical sky fairy, is nothing more than a neurological disorder. In other words, you have some serious mental issues going on and you need to seek out professional help ASAP.

Walter, give us ANY evidence that your god is alive and real, and not just in your head and your silly little book.

If THIS is the best your 'All powerful being' can do, I'm not impressed.

Wally: The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched me with his noodly appendages and told me that homosexuality isn't a problem at all, for anybody. So my God is okay with it. Also, he said the Apocalypse has been postponed for at least a thousand years, so you can stop worrying about that.

Darthfrodo

Walter, give us ANY evidence that your god is alive and real, and not just in your head and your silly little book.

If THIS is the best your 'All powerful being' can do, I'm not impressed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How is AIR,SKY,TREES,WIND,SNOW,RAIN,DIRT,WATER,GRASS, just to name a few.

==========================================================

Now now Walter, you're resorting to name calling. That's against the code of conduct here. Time-out for you.

Walter, Mars has everything you just named except for trees and grass. Try again, I still don't believe.

What right do we have to say what two people can do in the bedroom. I'm Roman Catholic and am for the equal right of all people. Is it a sin? YES! But am I to judge? No. Only the Holy Father can judge.

So Walter, you sound like a Reconstructionist Christian. Do you plan on stoning everyone who disagrees with your peculiar interpretation of the Bible?

And what about all of the non-Christians in the world? Are you advocating death to all of those infidels as well?

Remember, in the end it's God who judges, not you.

Oh Walter, I don't care if you believe in sky fairies and angels. It doesn't harm me in the least. In fact, I can admit, I saw an angel once, but then the snow melted and it was gone. So truly I can say, just like you, that they do exist, but mine didn't talk or move around or anything..........and the only miracle it performed was it disappeared when light shone on it.

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas.

Seriously, everyday we get closer to equality, the level of crazy ramps up just a bit more. Now somebody, ANYBODY, can you please provide some legal authority and reasoning for why gay marriage should be illegal. You know something that holds more water than "ick" or "god".

Civil unions offer the same level of equality, so it seems rather odd that they must push the religious aspect to the union despite the opposition.

@NZPete ... virtually every state that has explicitly banned same-sex marriage has also banned civil unions. Virginia has gone so far as to ban private contracts that attempt to "approximate" marriage. That shows that opponents of marriage equality aren't trying to "preserve traditional marriage", they're just plain old homophobes.

Severed Head in a Jar

So Walter, you sound like a Reconstructionist Christian. Do you plan on stoning everyone who disagrees with your peculiar interpretation of the Bible?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

God takes care of that, Remember, "ALL SIN IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH"

PRAISE GOD!!!

==================================================================

And what about all of the non-Christians in the world? Are you advocating death to all of those infidels as well?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No, God does, I'm just a messenger.

=====================================

Remember, in the end it's God who judges, not you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's Right, God does, I'm just a messenger.

=====================================

• 1Darthfrodo

Oh Walter, I don't care if you believe in sky fairies and angels. It doesn't harm me in the least. In fact, I can admit, I saw an angel once, but then the snow melted and it was gone. So truly I can say, just like you, that they do exist, but mine didn't talk or move around or anything..........and the only miracle it performed was it disappeared when light shone on it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well that's Good for you.

Praise God!!

========================================================

Well 1man+1woman, you've answered your own question. Priests who molest boys are pedophiles, not homosexuals. Homosexuals want to have sex with men, not little boys. That would be sick. When I think of how god's chosen ones, molest boys and he allows it, it just makes me sick and reinforces my belief that your god is either an idiot or he never has existed.

nzpete, it might offend elements of the black community to have their struggle compared with that of the GLBT folks, but perhaps we're offended by the implication that it's somehow better to be GLBT.

That old saw that we can just hide is one that needs to get thrown out. The fact is that people often times know and it's completely unpredictable when that's going to happen. What's more, nobody pretends like black people don't exist.

The black community needs to deal with it's homophobia if it's going to have any legitimacy in seeking better protections. We, by and large, supported them, so I think it's only fair to expect that they at least work to manage the homophobia in their community.

It's not about love. It's about benefits. By benefits I mean pension checks, social security etc... That's the big prize on the table for people wanting same sex marriage. They want to be paid like a woman who lost her husband. If it was about love, civil unions would be just as acceptable. Love doesn't require paper.

Go ahead and flame now. From everything I've ever read in these threads, people who don't agree with gay marriage are bigot's. Which makes them two faced for not letting us have our opinions but just wanting us to agree with theirs. Have it my two faced friends. I expect it!!!

Here’s my prediction:

The Supreme Court will strike down DOMA because it is discriminatory. They will find that civil unions crafted with language like New Jersey’s are not.

“A New Jersey civil union automatically includes you in the myriad legal rights and responsibilities under state law conferred on a married couple. In the words of the civil union legislation, a New Jersey civil union grants "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."

I have not read the details of Prop. 8 but if it contains language and protections comparable to New Jersey's it will be upheld by the court. Labels are not discriminatory, they are descriptive. Pepsi and Coke are both colas. People choose which they want based on personal taste. Would any court allow a third manufacturer, say Acme cola to demand they all be labeled simply cola because they can’t label their brand Coke or Pepsi?

As long as they include rights described in New Jersey’s civil union law, marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships should be regulated by individual states. States should be free to LABEL them anything they want. Voters in each state should decide, as they have in California.

With regard to benefits, in New Jersey at least, the terms “marriage” and “civil unions” can be described as a distinction without a difference. In terms of benefits afforded children however they are different. I oppose the notion that civil unions should be deemed equivalent to traditional marriage which recognizes the importance of a man and a woman bonding in the rearing children. To decree that all things being equal, two men or two woman can provide the same nurturing to children as a man AND a women is preposterous. In an ideal world, children should have a father and a mother because men and women are DIFFERENT and most children need exposure to both in order to thrive.

Homosexual couples deserve rights equal to heterosexual couples. What they don’t deserve is to claim there is no difference.

Sodom and Gomorrah fell over greed, not homosexuality.

GLC,

So why don't you go get a civil union and mind your own business about what other people want to do in their lives? Since I'm sure YOU are all about love.

OH REALLY, why did Sandy, Sandy Hook, Irene, etc. happen after "QUEERMO" PASSED SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION THEN.

Oh. Okay. What does that even mean?

Worse still is same-sex marriage, in its destructive
effect on society. The old Jewish writings report
that the final offense that brought Noah’s Flood
was the making of marriage contracts between men.
Here it is described in A Spiritual and Ethical Compendium
to the Torah and Talmud by Rabbi Arthur
Segal with Frank Dunne, Jr., 2008

I'm not Jewish, so the opinion of a rabbi has no impact on my religious beliefs.

My God says it's okay. You haven't refuted that in any way, Wally.

I think the Administration's argument of the "existence" of the Heterosexual Marriage as Union parallel being discriminatory to the Homosexual Union parallel fails because the Heterosexual Marriage as Union parallel can be shown to be " NOT arbitrarily targeted to be created", thusly failing to satisfy the legitimate basis to claim "Discrimination"; whereas the other parallel, Homosexual Union, is and shows itself to be arbitrarily targeted to be self-created for self-fulfilling prophecy, including their own Self-created Discrimination that they seek to blame on the Institution of Marriage. Not only does the Administration's argument of "Discrimination" fail, it also "causes" that very same failure into existence, by its own wrongly arbitrariness. Marriage being defined to be between one Man and One Woman is not arbitrarily targeted to be created to be anything other than it is and has been, for a long-long-long time, by precedent and by deep, deep, deeply rooted "precedent-in-kind", if you will. So deeply rooted that "persuasive precedent" is no longer viably needed to the argument.

"Arbitrarily targeted to be created", as a legitimate basis of a claim to be "Discriminatory" is excellently EPITOMIZED in Mayor Bloomberg's failed "Sugary" Drink Ban, also, I think. Democrats, including this Administration can't see the Forest for what it is because they can't take their eyes off "certain" trees!

Myself, personally, I feel better that it's finally in the Court's hands (and hopefully Minds, too) and out of the "Court of Public Opinion Discrimination and Bashing". I'm moving on to the HORRENDOUS US Prison and Jail Torture and Torment injustices, while waiting.

Marriage is a religious act, just because atheists get married doesn't take away from marriage being a religious act. I entered into Holy Matrimony with my husband, before God.

I've been thinking for years that we need to take marriage out of the government. I have nothing against gay people. But the bible condemns homosexuality so therefor, you have no right to enter into HOLY MATRIMONY. It's really just that simple and that's why us Christians fight against you tooth and nail because we are trying to preserve our religious ceremonies. This stands true with other religious branches of our same God... that feel the same way, such as Judaism & Muslim/Islamic Beliefs... We won't stand for it.

Solution... take Marriage completely out of government. It's not a civil right, it's a religious right. Civil unions for everyone for the purpose of law, taxes, and whatever else not related to the practice of religion....

Marriage is only and will only ever be between a Man and a Woman and anything else will not be seen as Marriage before the eyes of the Lord because it's him that creates this, not some Judge... I find that you cannot legislate morality, so let's just take it back... no one get's to be married unless they get Married by a CLERGY that is sanctioned by the Church to perform marriages. Leave our religious ceremonies alone and I will be happy with you being gay, lesbian, transgendered... I don't care. More power to you...

Gay Marriage is NOT the last civil right... what a freaking joke.

You bible thumpers remind me of Islamic terrorists. You both know one verse, you stand on the corner, thump that bible and recite that one verse, it's all you know, and you believe it or recite a verse from the Koran, then commit violent acts. Neither can put the whole document in context.

I predict, DOMA to be overturned, based on the 10th Amendment, leaving other issues to the states. Since on the federal level marriages are not a issue that is dealt with, it is left to lower jurisdictions. But, when a marriage is allowed in a state, the federal government is obligated to honor it, and not discriminate against that states sovereignty. Though this could be argued on the precedent of the basis which allowed for the American Civil War, but I don't feel that will carry a lot of weight.

Prop. 8 will be upheld, the precedent being the Amendment for prohibition of alcoholic beverage, then reinstating the production and sale of alcoholic beverage by another amendment, overturning the previous amendment. A society can create a Law, and a society can remove that Law. So, I don't feel the Justices will find merit in this case.

The big question may, or may not be addressed, just like the 2nd Amendment cases in recent history, leaving the door open to later cases and decisions. In those cases, the definition of arms was left unaddressed, though arguments were made addressing this. The decisions supported a citizens right to bear arms, but didn't address what would constitute arms. The big question in these cases will be concerning reciprocity, whether it is addressed or not. A marriage is by definition, a civil contract, does that contract hold across state boundaries, or not, and does there need to be reciprocity amongst the states for this contract to remain valid. That issue is the big can of worms, as it would tend to affect any marriage that would cross state lines. Which opens the next can of worms, is a civil contract valid only to residents of a state, or to non residents as well, can you cross state lines to get married, and the contract hold valid in the state of your residence. This has long been practiced when a minor becomes pregnant, and is not permitted to marry in the state of residence, then cross to a jurisdiction where it is permitted, for the purpose of a 'shotgun wedding'. Are these legally valid, and required to be honored in other jurisdictions, or not? If so, then by marriage being legally defined as a civil contract, they would carry all rights and obligations under the law, if not, none of these civil contracts would be valid outside the state they were initiated in. This would be the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I have my doubts that this question will be addressed, but as in the 2nd Amendment cases, the door will be left open for later arguments into this.

Crystal, as long as there are government benefits for marriage, it is not a purely religious institution. That's what this is about, the religious aspect will ultimately follow the political and social aspects over time, but arguing that it's religious ignores the amount of benefit that straight couples get out of it that aren't available in other ways.

It means that the "REAL REASON" for Sandy, Sandy Hook and Irene was "Gay Marriage"

I see. So, maybe you could shed some light on something for me. On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional. Funny, I haven't read anything about hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, mass-shootings, or plagues of locusts in Canada. I guess your God isn't as angry about that?

Oh C'mon "DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE RELATIONSHIP OF JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY?

You should "READ THE BIBLE"

Yeah, not Christian, either. Those are someone else's beliefs, not mine.

I don't want to, "YOUR god IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION THAT YOU DREAMED UP LISTENING TO THOSE "PHONY PREACHERS" AT THAT SO CALLED "GAY AND FAG INFESTED SODOMITE WHOREHOUSE OF A CHURCH YOU GO TO"

Oh, I see. So, your opinion isn't swayed by the words of a God you don't believe in? Maybe you should give that some serious thought, Wally.

Wall, flagged your post as "inflammatory," too. Jeez, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

@Frank

I realize this... that's why I said civil unions for everyone. I get why we gave married people legal benefits, but it needs to be changed. Christians are never going to accept Gay Marriage. So find common ground.

When will you nuts learn, gay marriage has NOTHING IN COMMON with womens' rights or slavery!

Nothing in common with women's rights? Men were allowed to vote, women were not. That made them unequal.

Marriage is a contract, nothing more. A contract between two parties. You can't enter into a contract with a dog, dolphin or hamster, so stop with the ridiculous arguments. There are reasons we have laws preventing marrying children, relatives, or multiple parties. There is absolutely NO REASON to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract, thereby gaining the rights granted, period. NO LEGAL REASON!! Cry and whine all you want, the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA and prop 8.

Crystal Miyagusuku

Marriage is only and will only ever be between a Man and a Woman and anything else will not be seen as Marriage before the eyes of the Lord because it's him that creates this, not some Judge... I find that you cannot legislate morality, so let's just take it back... no one get's to be married unless they get Married by a CLERGY that is sanctioned by the Church to perform marriages.

So let's just take marriage out of government, grant it only to Christians and to hell with everyone else, eh?

This is the argumentative equivalent of "taking your ball and going home".

You got married by the clergy, be proud of that. I understand your belief is religious based and that's totally acceptable. The difference is in the U.S. that the marriage boat sailed a long, long time ago and it's been determined for years that it's not just a religious right. It's been ruled in the past that marriage falls under "the pursuit of happiness". One of those constitution things.

Have a pleasant day.

Crystal,

You're confusing marriage with Holy Matrimony. Your belief that it's "religious" and disregard for all logical arguments showing you it isn't...

1. Atheists marrying.

2. People outside of your religion marrying.

3. Licencing through the state.

4. State benefits.

5. Non-existence of the marriage union without state involvement.

Doesn't actually mean your argument is logical, correct, or legal.

@ marywhatever: "The pursuite of happyiness. I want all drugs to be leagal. Then I'll be happy."

I want all kids to grow up, learn to read and write - "pursuit of happiness"

Try to stay away from the drugs for a day. Then we will all be happy.

Wow Wally sure is giving the rest of Christianity a bad name today. Maybe he forgets that we are not a theocracy. Our laws CAN NOT favor one religion over another. That's in the FIRST AMENDMENT. Now, he is entitled to believe whatever he wants to in terms of religion, but our laws will not be informed from ANYBODY'S RELIGION. It's against our Constitution to do so.

Marriage ceremonies are performed by "lay people" all the time. If the government decided that marriages could only happen in a church, then people who don't follow your religion couldn't get married and you would run into the discriminatory issue again. What if my religion deems that all marriages should be performed outside under an oak tree? There's no church involved ... What about people who don't believe in any god? You're saying that they shouldn't be married? Is a Synagogue the same as a church? How about a Buddhist Temple? What about a Mosque?

Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and is bound by contract law. Part of contract law is the avoidance of dispirit impact. If a law or a contract adversely effects a group of people whether by design or implication, then the law is unenforceable and the contract is void. Minors can not enter a contract without the contract being either voidable or void on its face. Animals, toasters, cars etc. can not form consent to enter into a contract therefore they can not be party to a contract. Marriage laws are written to allow TWO and ONLY TWO consenting adults to get legally married. Marriage is not all about procreation because if it were infertile people or people never planning to have children would not be allowed to get married. This would mean that women who have entered menopause would never be allowed to get married once it had started. Also, you ARE aware of IVF and surrogacy for allowing infertile couples to have children, right? The people who are gay or lesbian can also avail themselves of that technology. Also, there is ADOPTION which enables people to bring children into their family. SO all of the whining about "PROCREATION" being the REASON for marriage is BS.

I j ust want to say a few things before I get into my point. First, I am sick and tired of radical religious-types vomiting their "holier-than-thou" vitriol all over these posts! Not everyone believes the same way that you do and they are still good people! Just because someone does/or does not believe the same way that you do does not make them bad people!

Second, I am also sick and tired of you liberal, "holier-than-thou" people who slam anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs as "mental illnesses" or just stupidity! Not everyone believes the same way that you do and are still good people! Just because someone does/or does not believe the same way that you do does not make them bad people! (Notice the similarities of the arguments!)

Religion or lack of religion is not, as a definition, a bad thing. It is how these people live their lives or try to unduly influence others through either evangelism or politics that defines their level of "evil"! Yes, I say that the radicals on both side are being "evil" with their words and actions! A homosexual is not necessarily evil nor is an evangelical! It is the action of these people and how they influence those around them that matters. I would never tell someone that they were going to hell because of a choice of sexual partners (except for pedophiles) nor would I tell someone that they were ignorant "wing-nuts" because they have religious beliefs which contradict another's!

The fact is that the regulation of marriage is a state issue and not one at the federal level. If we remove the rights of the states to regulate marriage we open the door to complete federal control. This is in direct contradiction of the constitution. All that DOMA did was re-enforce that the states had the rights to regulate marriage and other states could not force their beliefs on others. I do not want to have California force any kind of regulation or law on Texas, or vice versa! And to all of you liberals who believe that the feds should force your beliefs on everyone I just want to make you think about what would happen if the pendulum of political power changes to the extreme right in 2016. Would you want this new administration to be able to force changes in many of your state's marriage or abortion laws? Why do you want to give less control to the citizens of states who do not agree with your current beliefs?

The fact is that the regulation of marriage is a state issue and not one at the federal level.

This isn't about regulation of marriage. This is about equal protection. It's also about the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Without nationwide legality of who can enter the marriage contract, that clause is broken. Right now, gay couples who marry in one state aren't recognized as married in another state.

@ Crystal

Hey, just wanted to let you know, I'm a Christian and I've accepted gay marriage. So did my grandmother, who was raised Southern Baptist. So does my entire Christian family, who are comprised of multiple denominations, both Catholic and Protestant.

There are, in fact, probably more Christians now who accept gay marriage than not, it's just that the media doesn't ask for our opinions, just those of the angry, ranting neocons, so you'd never know. But being someone who has sung and continues to sing to the glory of God in numerous churches across the country, I find many more people in support of their neighbors than not.

nzpete - You've insulted quite a number of African Americans by comparing the two.

It seems only racist white guys make that claim.

The reality is that blacks support the repeal of DOMA more than any other racial demographic.

And the NAACP and the vast majority of black civil rights leaders say that "Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time."

Darthfrodo

To 1man + 1woman = marriage

I wouldn't bother replying to "1man + 1woman = marriage"......he's just a troll who's been repeatedly banned under screen names like "TheTruthHurts", "JesusIsMyDog", etc. He's been peddling the same moronic nonsense about sex dolls for quite a while. He seems to have some very odd fantasies.

He's not worth any effort at all.

Walter, stop using my religion and my faith to sell your hatred and politics! What you do is evil. A government made by man must represent all men. God can and will forgive who he wants of whatever sins He chooses. Remember the son who goes away and wastes wealth his father gave him. When the son finally returned to the father (the father was looking for his son to return daily) The father forgave him and welcomed him home. You act like that man's other son, who proclaimed, "Why do you forgive him." You forget the spirit of God's laws and only remember their words. Religious people can quote scripture, spiritual ones live it. Are you an old testament jew, wandering in the desert for 40 years, or are you a New Testament Christian living with the knowledge God's kingdom is at hand, our savior came and taught us how to treat ALL others.

Gay rights to marriage is just another tactic by psychiatry to destroy the integrity of the US. This whole "it's just an alternate lifestyle" way of thinking was brought about by psychiatry and any research into that bunch of Nazis clearly shows that there has been a stated intent to destroy the institution of "family" in America. The GLBT way of acting is an aberration. But this country as a whole is moving toward self-destruction and therefore people are adopting a fatal "reasonableness" about so many things that soon we will be living as a people without a moral compass, where "if it feels good it must be ok" is our guiding principle, where working hard only gets rewarded by having your earnings taken so that it can be given to someone who didn't lift a finger (well, maybe a finger so they could sign their welfare check) to earn the bribes they are given by the Democratic party.

What's at stake is our freedom to choose for ourselves the life we wish to live. The Supreme Court has no business making that decision for all of us.

Same sex or any marriage is a personal thing and I'm sick of ass holes, that have little or no life of their own, butting into such matters.

There are way too many things that should never become policy or matters of law.

You guys that feel threatened by such things need to shut the fuk up and do your own thing before others start telling you what to do.

Because the "equality" of “marriage equality” functions as a code word for relativism, the impact of the movement for homosexual “marriage” as a civil right is the opposite of what it is portrayed to be. The endgame is not to make marriage equally available to all, but to make it equally unavailable to all.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia, last summer. “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

This admission “causes my brain some trouble,” Gessen says, “and part of why it causes me trouble is that fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there -- because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

How will it change? Gessen explains: “I have three kids who have five parents, more or less. . . . I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

“Marriage equality” becomes “marriage elasticity,” with the ultimate goal of “marriage extinction.”

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big ‘ol gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Researching this topic: Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit upon the highest bench in the land can recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end.

And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

The problem I have with this is not the marriage, but rather the federal government stepping again on states rights. Historically marriage has been the ward of the church, but because of land inheritance and problems the government took marriage and licencing and gave this responsibility to the states, this is also covered under the states rights in the constitution, specifically article four which gives the states and not the federal government rights over the administration of marriage, dissolving of marriage and court disputes that might arise out of marriage and joint property.

Because of this the federal government does have the right to force recognition of marriage and how it is defined from state to state, and interstate compacts should then be sat up and enforced by the feds for recognition of marriage (specifically gay marriage, and civil contracts) between states, but this would something that will have to be challenged in the courts. The problem coming into this is that gay rights groups are trying to force their will over the will of the people in states that have voted and confirmed that they wish to have marriage defined as between a man and woman. Many states today do have civil unions and the push has grown with acceptance of the younger generations as we go through a generation shift where gay marriage is becoming accepted and if brought to vote will continue to gain grounds in the states. But we need to stay within rule of law and stop the federal government from again stepping over it's duties and trying to force its will where it has no right to.

I do think that same sex couple do have a point of discrimination that they can bring to the courts because of lack of benefits for joint property, decisions on medical and care of loved ones, and just the pursuit of happiness, but this should be challenged because of discrimination not to try and force a institution set up for marriage between man and women and force it bend to their will. In the end I hope that civil unions are forced upon all states. And if the people vote and decide to include marriage between same sex couples then so be it, the people have spoken.

@"dr" mark

Yeah, because heterosexual women never suck cock, swallow sperm, or have heterosexual men's penises in their butts.

Grow up.

Walter P Orielly Jr.via Facebook

are you aware of how ridiculous you sound preaching when the rest of us are talking about laws and not religion....what part of that don't you understand goober head??

you are talking about man made laws dose not make it right. just because man said so. free will do as you please but don't keep asking for Churches to except your way of life . we make are own hell and live with it. do what you have to do . but don't expect the whole world to follow you. its called letting people live there own life's how the government got mixed up in this is beyond me

Gay marriage pertains to civil rights. A woman's right to vote and black persons freedom also fall under the same category. There is no distinction. No person should be considered second class or marginalized by some of your fundamentalist religious views. We do not have a theocracy. We have secular law. Period. Funny how some of you magically become religious when an issue that doesn't suit you arises. As for the Westboro people....you have no respect for anything and are diametrically opposite of your own doctrines.

Walter O'Reilly has some serious issues. First, This is the USA, established for freedom, not religious persecution. In fact, we had to defeat the christian clergy to establish our more perfect union.

Second, Sodom was destroyed because of greed and an unwillingness to share with the poor. Genesis 18 is frequently misused to argue against homosexuality, but in reality the sexual connection is that humans wanted to have sex with angels.

If you're going to quote your ridiculous lie of a book (bible), at least quote it correctly. The worst confines of Hell are reserved for judgmental people such as yourself, Walter O'Reilly.

Once again.... Marriage is not an absolute right! Incestuous marriages are banned, as are those with under aged children. Polygamy is also banned! The regulating of marriages has always been a states right, as is the state's right to allow civil unions. When the federal government gets involved in the rights of states to regulate we become a federal dictatorship and not a republic. I just do not want to see the federal government becoming "Big Brother" and informing the states what they are going to do in every situation. Once again, I have nothing against gay marriage, civil unions, the ability of them to adopt, etc... but, I do have a problem with the federal government legislating personal morality!

Dan and those who think like him,

Marriage is a legal contract, ergo it falls under the umbrella of 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,

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

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

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, from entering it 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. And YES, this is about gender and not sexuality, that's why DOMA would allow a gay man and gay woman to marry, but not two straight men.

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

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So....

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

The reasonings as to why incest, beastiality, et. al are illegal is tied in no ay to either homosexuality or marriage. That's why when we ceased to uphold "sodomy" laws they didn't magically become legal.

But regardless, it's STILL not valid, because the slippery slope doesn't apply to expansion of rights, it applies to the contraction of rights. It's applicable to the government. Ergo, the legal and logical way to apply the slippery slope to THIS situation would be to say, "Allowing the GOVERNMENT the power to ban marriage based on gender, which is a PROTECTED CLASS, could lead to the GOVERNMENT claiming they have the power to ban marriage based on OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES, like RACE or RELIGION (which by the way is a CHOICE, just like I'm sure you're about to claim sexual orientation is)".

And then, ask yourself this...

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

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

Also, you have to look at the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution. That says that the legal matters of one state must be upheld by other states. Right now, DOMA attempts to circumvent that and allows states to NOT acknowledge the marriage contracts of other states.

And NO, this isn't a states rights issue, that's why previous marriage cases, i.e Loving, made it to SCOTUS and was ruled on.

And OF COURSE, marriage isn't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't govern the actions of citizens. It limits and enumerates the power of the government. The only time a constitutional amendment applied to the behavior of citizens was prohibition, and tell me how THAT worked out, please.

By the way, when we legalized homosexual activity via the Lawrence case why didn't incest magically become legal???

Because there is NO link. The reason incest is illegal HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY.

I'm not going to debate anyone either way on this issue, been there done that. It doesn't matter what any of us think, the US Supreme Court will be the final word.

Civil Right's, Women's Right's, Interracial Marriage were all not supported by the majority of Americans when the Supreme Court changed the laws. Marriage Equality does have the support of the a majority of Americans. If you don't support Marriage Equality that's fine but you are part of the minority on this issue and the Supreme Court knows that. I think history is about to change.

The voters in 2008 in Cali decided against gay marriage via passing Prop. 8. When did it become OK for any minority get their way over the majority? Don't states rights have any meaning anymore? If they don't like to live under the premise of the majority rules, then they should move to somewhere they are the majority and quit their squealing.

Walter says he is the "Messenger of God"....Ohhhhkay....Moses says hello Walter.

It is quite obvious to me that he is actually 'Rev' Phelps or one of his obsessed and deranged followers. His posts have NO basis in reality or logic. They are the rantings of a mad man.

He actually helps us achieve gay rights...he turns off the average American and even those on the right wing, people see such hate and are naturally repulsed by it. Let him rant and wallow in the mud of hatred. He is inconsequential. Maybe one day he will find God. But I figure if God saw him coming, God might just duck into the nearest McDonalds--Well hopefully God would find a better place to duck into, but with Walter coming...as they say 'any port in a storm'

And never put guy people against Christians. (Real Ones that is) I am a Gay Christian. These people who slap the label of "Christian" on their shoulder and then go out an preach hate...are not Christians.

Bonebreaker,

It's always been okay, seeing as we're a Republic. We don't vote on civil rights. In fact our entire system is set up to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we DID vote on civil rights, we'd still have segregated schools in some places.

Seriously, how many times do we have to tell you people that?

Bonebreaker...this country was funded to protect the rights of 'minorities' over the majority.

By the way White Men are not the majority, they are not even a plurality.

For instance we have laws to protect the rights of criminals--a minority..to protect the rights of Blacks, and yes to protect the rights of Christians and every other religion. Our entire Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of minorities.

Their right to speak

Assemble

Associate

Publish

I think you skipped Civics class way too much

Sarah GMTA!

(But you typed faster!)

Sarah. Then why was it put up for a vote to start with in Cali? And what's the use on voting on anything if the losers may win. What if Obama's election was dumped because nobody wanted to accept the peoples majority of electoral votes?

Sarah. Then why was it put up for a vote to start with in Cali?

Because you can put @!$%# on a ballot for a vote. That's why we have a judicial branch. So that when people try to circumvent the system it can be challenged via the courts.

And what's the use on voting on anything if the losers may win.

Because not everything is a civil rights issue.

What if Obama's election was dumped because nobody wanted to accept the peoples majority of electoral votes?

Do you really not understand the difference between a civil rights issue and a presidential election?

Frankly,

I have fingers of fire!

Frankly True. Do you think the voters in Cali were ALL white folks who voted for prop 8? Voting on a public issue to see who wants what or not is NOT an infringement on anything in the constitution. The votes were cast and prop 8 was accepted by a mahority of the voters, why is this not correct that it stays in place?

Sarah. GEEZ. An election is a way to see who wants do do what about an issue that affects them. Nothing to do with civil rights. The voters must decide in a democracy how things should be. Most votes= win. less votes=lose.

Nothing to do with civil rights

Except you know when the issue deals with civil rights. I can't believe you really aren't understanding this.

Bonebreaker - The votes were cast and prop 8 was accepted by a mahority of the voters, why is this not correct that it stays in place?

Because it violates the 14th Amendment, as every court which has ruled on Prop h8 has found.

Literally, your side has literally lost every single ruling on DOMA and Prop h8 to date.

Sarah. What would you say if the prop 8 HAD passed in 2008 in Cali and then the SC struck that down? Prop 8 would have been voted for by the majority of voters but the win didn't stand. Wouldn't that piss you off. I can't believe you don't understand the rule of the majority in an election. That's exactly why we have elections, to see what the majority thinks and wants.

Bone,

No, that wouldn't piss me off, as that is how the system works. Jesus, study your civics, we're not "majority rules". If we were, why would we even have a SCOTUS? And, by the way, how did we desegregate the south? Was that voted on by the citizens, I can't seem to remember. The "majority" doesn't get to vote away the rights of the minority. How about this, we take a poll right now to vote on whether you have the freedom of speech to post on Newsvine. Sound good?

http://www.icivics.org/curriculum/judicial-branch

Seriously, "checks and balances" is third grade stuff.

Ron Childers - Civil Right's, Women's Right's, Interracial Marriage were all not supported by the majority of Americans when the Supreme Court changed the laws. Marriage Equality does have the support of the a majority of Americans. If you don't support Marriage Equality that's fine but you are part of the minority on this issue and the Supreme Court knows that. I think history is about to change.

Yep. The court doesn't want to become a joke in the footnote of history.

I suspect the bigots will be very, very disappointed when the court rules in June......especially if the court adopts heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation. The haters don't yet realize that they shot themselves in the foot when they passed these anti-gay laws.

Sarah. The Civil Rights Act was pushed by Lyndon Johnson and the bill passed the house and senate and was signed into law. The voters representatives at the time in congress passed the legislation so in fact the majority of the people were the reason for its passage because their elected officials did their bidding.

Shrekk. The SCOTUS will NOT strike down Prop 8. The issue was passed by a majority of the voters in Cali and I think they will support their wishes.

Sarah. The Civil Rights Act was pushed by Lyndon Johnson and the bill passed the house and senate and was signed into law.

Oh my God, I can't believe I even have to tell you this.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

The court had already ruled that segregation was illegal. The Civil Rights Act was passed AFTERWARDS as a precautionary measure, since federal trumps state law.

And you didn't answer any of my other questions...

Jesus, study your civics, we're not "majority rules". If we were, why would we even have a SCOTUS?

The "majority" doesn't get to vote away the rights of the minority. How about this, we take a poll right now to vote on whether you have the freedom of speech to post on Newsvine. Sound good?

Tell me, if you're right and civil rights can be voted on by the majority, can we vote tomorrow to outlaw Christianity?

You know, asserting something over and over doesn't make it any more correct, right?

Sarah: You stated the "protected classes are race and GENDER". This is interpreted as; "Males as well as Females". You also stated, " without a damn good". Homosexuals have an "inherent biological inability in their sexual intercourse". You know they can't make baby's, without a third party intervention.

And BTW, which gender is the "husband" and which gender is the "wife"?

I must emphasis this point. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are free to have a "civil unions". Heterosexual unions are called, Marriages, and Homosexual unions are call Domestic Partnerships .

Decorum and propriety would be "a state interest", in the Texas case.

California Family Law Section: 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

D.O.M.A resolves the issue, at the expense of a inequality. That may have been the reason the public voted on Proposition 215. It resolves the issue, regardless of the wording. "Gay Marriage", is NOT the proper title, that homosexuals should have, Domestic Partnership is.

I didn't know we legalized homosexual activity. Does the Lawrence case legalize "Sepsis Sex"? Do you believe Sigmund Freud's psychosexual analysis is totally without merit?

There is also this issue, since Easter is tomorrow about the Virgin Mary's name, having relevance to Marry to wed. If you have any belief what so ever. That the Virgin Mary's name has relevance, then you would recognize the impropriety in decorum. It would save homosexuals marriages, the stigma of being "overstated" and out of context, when they must reveal their status to a Orthodox Catholic or Christian community.

Hi,

I have no problem with all Afro Americans being homosexual, that's a good thing, don't you think itsa.

but

a lot of my good Afro Americans would disagree with you Itsa.

Sarah-3043284---Gay is not a race or a gender, thank you very much your argument does not apply

agree if you can have sex with it you should be able to marry it...and that water melon out in the field can bear your seeds...and the cucumber might want to marry you real good...

J,

You know they can't make baby's, without a third party intervention.

Either can infertile people. Either can people who are too old to have kids. Do we allow them to get married? And by the way, gay men's sperm and gay women's eggs still work, so they CAN have children without a third party.

And yes, Lawerence legalizes ALL consensual sex. That's why straight men can get blow jobs and have all the anal sex they want TOO.

And that's great about CA, now what happens when a couple moves to say Mississippi? Did you read the part about the Full Faith and Credit Clause...

Also, you have to look at the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution. That says that the legal matters of one state must be upheld by other states. Right now, DOMA attempts to circumvent that and allows states to NOT acknowledge the marriage contracts or civil unions of other states.

And I don't give a @!$%# about the Virgin Mary, nor does ANYONE HAVE TO. That's completely irrelevant.

Irvani,

Gay is not a race or a gender, thank you very much your argument does not apply

Perhaps you should read my WHOLE post...

.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. And YES, this is about gender and not sexuality, that's why DOMA would allow a gay man and gay woman to marry, but not two straight men.

Bob,

Feel free to have sex with all the vegetables you want, but until a vegetable has legal capacity for informed consent, you're SOL when it comes to marrying them.

Sarah. Regardless of why the Civil Rights Bill was passed, it WAS passed by the reps of the people who were voted into office by them.

The "majority" doesn't get to vote away the rights of the minority. How about this, we take a poll right now to vote on whether you have the freedom of speech to post on Newsvine. Sound good?

Fine with me, Newsvine has barred people before and deleted posts and if they don't want me to post it's fine by me, it's their business.

Tell me, if you're right and civil rights can be voted on by the majority, can we vote tomorrow to outlaw Christianity?

Get it on a national ballot and lets vote on that too, I'm good with that. Matters not to me as I am an Agnostic. And BTW, I think you secular progressives would not be too happy with the results.

but Sarha...i'm already married to this little peach...lucky me...

Fine with me, Newsvine has barred people before and deleted posts and if they don't want me to post it's fine by me, it's their business.

Ah, Newsvine isn't the government, ergo they didn't violate anyone's civil rights. Pretend we're PASSING LEGISLATION that would make it ILLEGAL for you to post your opinion.

Get it on a national ballot and lets vote on that too, I'm good with that. Matters not to me as I am an Agnostic. And BTW, I think you secular progressives would not be too happy with the results.

Sure, right after we vote on making it illegal for you not to be a Christian. Yup, we're going to vote to force you to practice Christianity. Still okay with that?

Wait, I'm sure you're going to say you are even if you aren't, because your entire, FLAWED argument depends on it.

You seriously, couldn't pass third grade civics, you know that right?

"so they CAN have children without a third party".
That mans' sperm and that womans' ovum, IS the third party intervention.

The old had the ability and the infertile are an exception to the rule.

Lawrence doesn't seem to have very much dignity to me.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, seems as if it fails to recognize the voters in other states if it was a legislated bill enacted. Not democratic at all, as far as voter validity.

Many people believe the Virgin Mary's name is relevant, to the word Marry. If one does, this is one "audacious motive" of homosexuals.

Sarah. Ah, Newsvine isn't the government, ergo they didn't violate anyone's civil rights. Pretend we're PASSING LEGISLATION that would make it ILLEGAL for you to post your opinion.

That would be fine too. I don't want to push my way into somewhere or something I'm not wanted in. Unlike so many folks, like you, who want to push EVERYTHING where it's not wanted by most people.

Sure, right after we vote on making it illegal for you not to be a Christian. Yup, we're going to vote to force you to practice Christianity. Still okay with that?

Yep. I can PRETEND to be anything if I am forced to, except a homo.

You seriously, couldn't pass third grade civics, you know that right?

That's all according to what the teacher wanted from me. Based on the very reduced requirements for minorities to EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD, I probably could.

J,

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, seems as if it fails to recognize the voters in other states if it was a legislated bill enacted. Not democratic at all, as far as voter validity.

It's in the CONSTITUTION. You know what that is, right? The supreme law of the land that all other laws have to be in compliance with.

Many people believe the Virgin Mary's name is relevant, to the word Marry. If one does, this is one "audacious motive" of homosexuals.

Sure they do, that doesn't give it any legal authority or relevance.

The old had the ability and the infertile are an exception to the rule.

And those who get married and don't want kids? And those who have kids without getting married? How about this, show me where the statute is that says that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

That mans' sperm and that womans' ovum, IS the third party intervention.

Well that went over your head.

Lawrence doesn't seem to have very much dignity to me.

Nobody cares.

Bone,

Thank you for proving my point correct.

Second, I am also sick and tired of you liberal, "holier-than-thou" people who slam anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs as "mental illnesses" or just stupidity! Not everyone believes the same way that you do and are still good people! Just because someone does/or does not believe the same way that you do does not make them bad people! (Notice the similarities of the arguments!)

I don't think people are mentally ill just because they are religious, but I do think, as an individual of that group, Walter is mentally ill. There's a distinction. Just read through his post. Those are not the posts of a sane person, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he believes in God. There are people that believe in God and then there are extremists, like Walter, who are just plain off their nut.

Bonebreaker, what if the people on Newsvine voted that it is now legal to hunt people with a screen name of Bonebreaker? Your argument would mean that we could do it because we voted and a majority rules. But, there are laws to stop things like that from happening you see. We have laws which guarantee equal rights for all. Those laws say that if my wife and I entered into a marriage contract, that we are given certain benefits by the government, but if the two women living in the house next to me (that is so hot!!!) want those same benefits they currently aren't available to them. Why? Because a 'religion' says, "Oh that's against our beliefs, we can't have that" ????? It is inevitable that if you grant certain rights and privileges to two people entering into a marriage contract, they have to grant those same rights to all, no matter what sex. No way around it.

Sarah-3043284---Then it was not you who said;

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

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

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

So with this in mind and using the whole quote from the Justice, not out of context, gender in this case refers to man and woman and deals specifically with race. Using a play on words to determine the outcome and support of your cause with partial information is not really telling a fib either, right.

I would also like to point out you think DOMA is wrong and should be removed yet California voters approved prop 8 and it was rejected by a federal Judge on the grounds that a right once given cannot be taken away. Now you want the Federal government to remove a law you do not like for one that you do. So that means you do want government in the bedroom, just not in the way you do not like. Also using the ruling of the judge in California to overturn prop 8, a Californian mandate according to liberals who voted for Obama, there would be no way anyone could from this point on make any new laws restricting anything which citizens now enjoy as a freedom because technically the precedent has been set.

Irvmani

So with this in mind and using the whole quote from the Justice, not out of context, gender in this case refers to man and woman and deals specifically with race. Using a play on words to determine the outcome and support of your cause with partial information is not really telling a fib either, right.

It's a statement regarding protected classes. This same ruling would be used if a law said a Jew can't marry a Buddhist, since religion is also a protected class.

It's a question of protected classes, not of semantics.

@Sarah-3043284 - I get your argument completely. You must have aced your law classes AND your civics classes. I'm absolutely with you on this. I just wanted to mention that the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage (which is why they have an unfair tax burden if one of the partners dies unlike say the widower or spouse who just inherits the marital property) or the tax implications when filing federal taxes because they can't check off marriage.

I'm not sure how the SCOTUS is going to rule. They may rule DOMA unconstitutional but they may just make sure that the federal government recognizes gay marriage on a federal level while leaving the determination of gay marriage up to the individual states. I for one think they should follow the same sort of ruling that followed the loving case (interracial couple wanting to get married) that you mentioned before.

Irvani,

Seriously, you still don't get it. Let me see if I can make it simpler...

The difference between a hetero marriage and a gay marriage is the GENDER of one of the parties entering the contract.

DOMA defines marriage as a contract between a MAN and a WOMAN. Those are GENDERS.

No where does DOMA say anything about homosexuality. That's why a gay man could marry a gay woman, but two straight men or two straight women couldn't get married.

BECAUSE IT'S DEPENDENT ON THE GENDER, NOT THE SEXUALITY.

Do you see yet???

Now you want the Federal government to remove a law you do not like for one that you do.

No one's suggesting we pass any other law, just repeal DOMA and allow marriage and contractual laws to be enforced under equal protection.

I would also like to point out you think DOMA is wrong and should be removed yet California voters approved prop 8

AGAIN, we don't vote on civil rights. You know, EQUAL PROTECTION.

So that means you do want government in the bedroom, just not in the way you do not like. Also using the ruling of the judge in California to overturn prop 8, a Californian mandate according to liberals who voted for Obama, there would be no way anyone could from this point on make any new laws restricting anything which citizens now enjoy as a freedom because technically the precedent has been set

What the hell are you talking about? When we expanded voting rights, did we never again restrict a behavior? When we desegregated, did we never again restrict behavior?

Or you know, we could make sure that our government is applying the law under the umbrella of equal protection and hold them to that standard. You know the one that says they don't get to tell us what to do without a compelling state interest?

And NO, government shouldn't be in our bedrooms at all, unless what's going on there isn't CONSENSUAL and we already have laws restricting that for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage or homosexuality.

JH,

It's good to know SOMEBODY gets it. I'm calling it here and now. They knock down DOMA and legalize it across the board because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and gender discrimination. The ruling will be 7-2, with Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

Still can't accept the fact that Obama won can you Irvmani? I'm sure you see him as just another black man living in government housing. Your argument has holes in it. You said 'on the grounds that a right once given cannot be taken away.' They were given the right to marry, and prop 8 was taking that away. Allowing gays to marry isn't making a law, so your saying 'to remove a law you do not like for one that you do' holds no weight. It's a RIGHT being granted, not a 'law' allowing gays to marry. There won't be a 'law' allowing same sex marriage, there WILL however be a law which will forbid states from denying equal rights, because it's unconstitutional.

just ask Sarha...cause i don't know...ya'll have a great saturday...music please...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMRqN0m5c-M

Walter,

Please learn about your religion instead of being woefully ignorant about the etymology of the term "apocalypse" (synonymous with "Judgement day", the "second coming", "doomsday"). The word apocalypse simply means "revelation". On the day of the apocalypse there will be no fire raining from the skies, no angels coming to take away the devout, no re-birthing of Jesus. It will be a day when a revelation is made and our perspective changes.

It is quite literally the same as the 2012 prophecy by the Mayans and the similar declared days in most religions. This is because most modern religions, if not all, were adapted from ancient Egyptian worship. Amen, the ever so present word of affirmation in prayer present in some derivation in every religion? It's etymology is Amun, the Egyptian king of the gods.

There are many parables between not only Christianity and the religion, to use the term loosely, of the ancient Egyptians but these parables are present in nearly every religion since. The Apocalypse, the ten commandments, pass over, and many other events can be found in some derivation in each religion.

More over we are not a Christian nation. Read and compare the Jeffersonian Bible to the the one you read in Church. You will be surprised. The founding fathers knew the danger of an out of control religion and while they were religious themselves most of them were part of the Masonic Order and realized that Christianity and other religions of the time were really remnants of a far older religion as mentioned above.

In fact the founding fathers believed that Man could become Gods in their own right. Ever see the ceiling of the rotunda of the Capitol building? There is a fresco there entitled "Apotheosis of Washington" and it depicts George Washington becoming a God through enlightenment surrounded by many Gods of the Pagan religion.

Do some research, reevaluate your positions, and then come back to this discussion without the angst and we can have a solid debate on the merits and faults of SSM.

Sarah,

If the clowns who have been trying (and miserably failing) to debate your excellent points represent any semblance of the kind of arguments which might be made against striking down DOMA at the Supreme Court, then I think even Thomas and Scalia would have to cave as well.

Speaking of Thomas, who as an African-American man now married to a white woman who he would not have been legally allowed to marry about twenty years prior to his wedding day:. For him to rule against marriage equality for same sex couples, would be to ignore his own personal experience with equal protection, guaranteed by a similar set of circumstances that the Supreme Court now faces. That would truly be rich wouldn't it?

Sarah-3043284---So in deciding this issue you have again attempted to slant the words into some kind of position of strength. First the fourteenth amendment is directly related to race. Homosexuality is not a race, it cannot be related in any shape or form as relating to the ethnic background of any race. In terms of Supreme Court decisions with respect to the inequality in this case it is directly tied to the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved.

You are correct in respect to the contract of marriage as it exists any man can marry a woman or vice versa. Yet you fail to accept that the government does not view marriage as a civil right only the inequality of laws that prohibit ethnic marriage. It has in fact established restrictions to marriage by denying people the right to have multiple partners. A short version of the law which is not complete follows from 1892;

"Every person who has a husband or wife living who, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years..."

Not only does this law state the government has jurisdiction it pretty much describes what constitutes a marriage. Under the terms of equality how is this any different, this law like many others are passed to the benifit of the whole for many different reasons. Your argument about it is not fair does not always means it is not right.

By the way I see perfectly what I say or do, I understand as well the consequences of those actions. I am the same guy who was unpopular in the 60s and 70s for supporting our veterans. I was also there for the battle of civil rights and faced equally that unpopular stance as well. So I think I understand rights pretty well.

Darthfrodo---Your over simplification of my comments are commendable, I do not view the color issue as you wish so it makes your statement irrelevant. I merely used the comparison as an example. I may have confused replacing the law with a law but there will be statutes that will be put into effect. However the states are in fact passing laws stating that gays can get married and the state recognizes that union so I guess you are passing a law because it will still be legally defined.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967

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

Sarah, #1.127,

If wrong, you cook dinner for Fred, your new neighbor, for a week. Care to readjust?

Myown,

Not at all.

John,

It would truly be rich, but definitely not shocking.

Irvan,

First the fourteenth amendment is directly related to race.

As well as religion, national origin and GENDER.

Homosexuality is not a race, it cannot be related in any shape or form as relating to the ethnic background of any race. In terms of Supreme Court decisions with respect to the inequality in this case it is directly tied to the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved.

Well that's good, because the argument I made was about GENDER.

. Yet you fail to accept that the government does not view marriage as a civil right only the inequality of laws that prohibit ethnic marriage.

Well good thing EQUAL PROTECTION is. Not to mention SCOTUS has ruled it one 14 times. The restrictions on polygamy are a regulation of RELIGIOUS rights.

Not only does this law state the government has jurisdiction it pretty much describes what constitutes a marriage. Under the terms of equality how is this any different, this law like many others are passed to the benifit of the whole for many different reasons.

Because you, nor the Prop 8 supporters can come up with ONE compelling interest why it should be illegal. You have to show an infringement of rights or harm that would come to society if we legalized it. We're a free nation, we do NOT need to show a benefit that would come from legalizing anything.

Your posts aren't getting any more logical. Seriously, I love how you completely ignore that my argument was based on GENDER and start talking about race.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Sarah-3043284 - It's also about the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Without nationwide legality of who can enter the marriage contract, that clause is broken. Right now, gay couples who marry in one state aren't recognized as married in another state.

I agree about the inequity a lack of FF&C application causes but I don't expect that one to change since there's always been a "public policy exception" to FF&C, dating back at least to 1939. Section 2 of DOMA will likely stand, and even if Congress ultimately repeals DOMA it won't really change anything due to the public policy exception. Section 2 has got to be one of the more worthless bits of legislation in existence as it didn't really do anything, even though it sounds good to the bigots.

Remember, the anti-miscegenation laws weren't struck down on FF&C grounds. In fact there were a wide variety of cases where courts refused to recognize an out of state mixed-race marriage when an FF&C claim was made.

This is a good review of the issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-wolff/doma-repeal-and-the-truth_b_905484.html

skrekk, #1.136,

I many times skip your posts because of a wealth of insulting name calling. Glad you didn't this time.

Good link, RECOMMENDED, the author explained the 'pro & cons' as well as the historical exceptionally well. Though, now I believe DOMA will be a split decision, as you indicated.

If it means anything..Gold star..with a notation. You could reach more people being polite, as you did today.

Sarah,

Read 'skrekk's' post #1.136 and link. I believe he is correct, only half of DOMA will be repealed.

So the questions: DOMA-Sec #2?; DOMA-Sec #3?, how are you predicting the vote? still 7-2?

myownthoughts56 - Though, now I believe DOMA will be a split decision, as you indicated.

Only section 3 is being challenged since that's the only one which actually has any legal impact. Section 2 is meaningless and irrelevant, although the author of the article I cited does make a good point about a hypothetical adverse consequence of section 2. Since section 2 causes no demonstrable harm to any person it's pretty difficult to have standing to challenge it.

You could reach more people being polite, as you did today.

Thanks for the advice but I'll continue to call out dumb bigots as the dumb bigots they are. I'd be using the exact same language if the issue were mixed-race marriage, and people like you were trying to deny the civil rights of mixed-race couples. Same thing with the Christofascists who want to use our government to enforce their sharia laws - they deserve every bit of contempt they get.

Agreed. If you don't like the gay lifestyle, don't be one. Nothing in the these laws force a heterosexual to be gay. Let's move on to more important issues like Immigration, the environment and economic opportunity.

Thank you. You bring up a point. The more people fight it, the louder we'll get it. It has happened with all civil rights issues and this is no different.

Gays being allowed to marry does not force straights to get divorced or whatever weird fears they have.

LEGALIZE LOVE FOR ALL!

drmark-1310601 You seem to have quite a personal look into what is going on. Truth is you are a stupid person with a twisted imagination. Next time you get lucky and get laid, if ever, be sure the woman that will even let you near her has not sucked my dick and let me fuk her in the ass. They are everywhere.

drmark, I know a whole lot of straight people that "suck penises, swallow sperm, and allow their partner to shove their penis up their rectum." I also know some straight people who have had waaaaaaaaaaaay too many sex partners.

You have problems.

Hi,

The only reason they want marriage is to get the tax breaks that child bearing married couples get. This will also allow two men or woman to get vet benefits if one of them served. I see no reason why a man who is acting like a woman should get benefits off the government when they haven't served. I see no reason why they should get tax breaks like married couples trying to raise children.

For that matter, I think our stupid spend free government should lay down a flat tax for the whole country, so we would quit hearing about gay marriage, or the supreme court would say you homosexuals can get married but no tax breaks for two men or women who are married, but then again that's all you married for was for love.

So all you gay people stfu. Most of the gays I know have better jobs just because employers are afraid to say no to you anymore.

I will leave it at that, because people aren't being hired for their knowledge or experience anymore it is all about sex, race, and religion anymore, no wonder this country is going to hello.

Noone should get tax breaks for being married or having kids. We should not have to pay for anyone elses children you wanted kids pay for them gay or straight. Everyone should pay the same amount gay straight with kids without kids single or married rich or poor.

marriage is not a right defined in the US constitution and no judge can grant rights not defined. you have a right to free association under the first but thats it.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman mostly in a religious setting, if others of the same sex like to be together there is nothing stopping them, NOTHING. what gays want (in part) is the monetary benefits that the government unconstitutionally gives to heterosexual couples who are married, they also want to force others to accept their choices in being gay. homosexuality is not natural, normal, productive or anything other than an abnormality we can observe in nature, its like being born without ears or retarded or later in life you choose to pierce your ear, nose or what have you. people choose to engage in sexual acts with the same sex, love is apart from sex but us humans can quite understand that yet.

pho·bi·a

/ˈfōbēə/
Noun

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something: "he had a phobia about being under water"; "a phobia of germs".

you only make yourself sound retarded when you make up words to suit your agenda. there is no such word as "homophobia" as no one is scared of homosexuals. would using hetero-phobia work for people who hate on straights?

love is separate from sex, if you have love for the same gender then why do you want to have sex with them? does pounding fecal matter sound sexy or loving? how about sucking a harry mans sweaty balls? lesbos scissor, WTF point is that? strap-on's so they can pretend to be fked by a man but they are lesbo? sexual deviance is common in humans but individuals take it to an all new meaning, even straights have whacked out sex acts the same as gays. whats the point of being gay? there is a point in being straight, its called procreation, something gays cant do and will never do.

the solution to all your problems would be to force the government to stop giving any benefits to any married couples and allow any civil union by a judge. that is the only fair and equal solution, anything else is not equal.

also remember, as a free-citizen, i can discriminate against anyone all i want and there is nothing anyone one can do about it, its called LIBERTY! i dont have to accept anything about you as you dont about me

Swagganaut - marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman mostly in a religious setting

Flat wrong. Every marriage in the US is just a legal contract.

marriage is not a right defined in the US constitution and no judge can grant rights not defined.

The SCOTUS disagrees, as they determined marriage to be a "basic civil right!"

marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman mostly in a religious setting,

A religious ceremony carries no legal weight or authority.

what gays want (in part) is the monetary benefits that the government unconstitutionally gives to heterosexual couples who are married

What's unconstitutonal about that? Besiudes, there are over 1100 other federal benefits associated with legal marriages.

they also want to force others to accept their choices in being gay

Being gay is not a choice. When did you choose to be straight? besides, your acceptance is neither required or necessary. Only the government under the law is!

homosexuality is not natural, normal, productive or anything other than an abnormality we can observe in nature

Biologists disagree with you too!

people choose to engage in sexual acts with the same sex, love is apart from sex but us humans can quite understand that yet.

And you have yet to understand the difference between behavior and orientation.

there is no such word as "homophobia" as no one is scared of homosexuals.

Paranoid mig t be a better term then, as many people seem afraid of some undefined homosexual "agenda," or that society will collapse if gays are allowed to marry. Or that traditional marriages will be affected if they do, ect.. Of course, bigot is also an applicable term too to those who want to deny gays the right to marry.

if you have love for the same gender then why do you want to have sex with them?

Why do you want to have sex with the opposite gender? Same reasons.

there is a point in being straight, its called procreation, something gays cant do and will never do.

So you think sex should only be for procreation? Sex is also for recreation and enjoyment, even if people use toys and what not. Besides, procreation is not a requirement for marriage, or vice versa!

love is separate from sex

Are you implying gays are incapable of loving?

the solution to all your problems would be to force the government to stop giving any benefits to any married couples and allow any civil union by a judge.

Sounds like you're jealous. but since marriage is a civil instituton under the law, the government has a vested interest in maintaining equality and allowing for people to exercise their right to marry, without it being infringed upon.

also remember, as a free-citizen, i can discriminate against anyone all i want and there is nothing anyone one can do about it, its called LIBERTY!

Of course you can, just as we can call you out as a bigot, a homophobe, and just plain ignorant! And there's nothing you can do about it either.

DrMark,

I think you are enjoying this conversation. Just be reminded that we are having an intelligent conversation about legal matters, not this trash that you keep eluding to. Go wash your hands and get back to work, no fornication here for you to look at!

It's how they make a living, they don't care what's at stake, it's all about money. If there's a law they can't make money from they find a way to make one that will. Same with States, and the Fed. It's a system by design to make money.

Is this why heterosexuals get married for at tax union? Why just ask Britney Spears, who was married for 36 hours, or better yet, Newt Gingrich. Who was married to a woman, then another woman, then another woman. Yep, its all about 'tax unions'. Course, the heterosexual community honors their vows so well, that they only have a 53% divorce rate too.

Marriage is for all AMERICANS. Your god does not make the civil laws for the United States, is not mentioned in the US Constitution, nor is the bible, nor is Christianity. Keep your beliefs in god, but KEEP them out of our government and secular laws.

greatwhiteshark

Why should people be satisfied with civil unions? Do you know very much about American History? In the 1960's, We tried something similar, it was called "Separate but Equal" in the American South. African Americans drank, went to school, read from text books, used different doors, bathrooms, then White Americans, because it was considered 'EQUAL'.

We saw how that turned out. It created a 'second class' of American citizens based on RACE, but it was 'equal'. This is the same thing with CIVIL UNIONS.

Marriage applies to ALL AMERICANS, or CIVIL UNIONS applies to all AMERICANS. We are all legal in the eyes of the law.

P.S. On April 10, 1967 - Loving Vs Virginia, the US SUPREME COURT declared a law 'UN Constitutional ' that prevents african americans from marrying white american. Virginia said it was against 'god', and 'would destroy' the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT in accordance with the 14th amendment.

That was the 1870s when they started that actually, it ended (for official segregation anyways) in the 1960s

Having the Supreme Court find in favour of Gay Marriage must be like winning the Triple Crown, the World Series and the Stanley Cup of Queerdom - all rolled into one!

William Sorkin

1960's/1870's, Dawn of time. It doesn't matter. The same scenario plays out. We do not have 'separate' but equal. Thank you for the comment.

greatwhiteshark

SCOTUS will strike down DOMA and Prop 8. I have no doubt. Will they grant equal marriage through the entire US, I say they probably will. Its not 'a WIN", its called "equal rights for all".

greatwhiteshark

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Gay Marriage is coming, and you can't stop the wave of freedom. You don't have to like it, accept it, tolerate, it, get used to it, condone it, be in one, or anything else. However, I'd get USED TO IT, its going to happen.

rarely are people proud of being racists. I give props to GWS for his open display and acknowledgement of his hate and bigotry! lol.

and yes, gays lacking civils rights is the same concept as anyone else lacking civil rights. Only a moron wouldn't understand that. :)

To: ItsAboutTime:

One thing I bet you never considered.

Mankind made progress towards civilization by accepting rules of conduct that forced him to give up certain forms of immediate gratification.

Go ahead, open Pandora's box. What if we have three individuals that claim a constitutional right to marry? Do we deny them? What if its thirty? How about two men and a sheep?

greatwhiteshark

Mankind made progress towards civilization by accepting rules of conduct that forced him to give up certain forms of immediate gratification.

Nope. I guess having a minors in History, International Affairs, a bachelors degree in Political Science, and a Masters in political science means I 'never' studied mankinds progress towards civilization.

Umm... Homosexuality has been in the world as long as heterosexuality. Rome, Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Indus Valley etc.. Need I go on? It wasn't until Christianity came into the world, did it become a "PROBLEM" in the western world.

P.S. Polygamy has also been in the world just as long. If more than three want to be married, fine with me, I am sure you wouldn't have a problem being married to two women now WOULD YA.

Sheep? Again, you miss the WHOLE point of marriage and the word "CONSENT". Can a SHEEP give consent? Please stay away from my pets....

To "Marriage is for children of God..." So I guess that atheists, pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi, Sikhs, Shinto, and the host of other non-Abrahamic religion families around the world are NOT allowed to get married, or at least have a marriage officially recognized? I didn't know that! Thanks for the clarification.

I have the perfect solution to the gay marriage issue. My solution involves no new taxes, no regulations, no new government agencies, and no government oversight at all. It seems to me that “small” government” conservatives should be all for it if, in fact, they want small government. So here is my solution ---

• If you’re opposed to gay marriage --- DO NOT marry a gay person.

ItsAboutime;

You are right. What we forget is that the Bible was a legal code for essentially a nomadic dessert-dwelling tribe. Life back then was very labor intensive--herding animals, farming, defense--all of which needed laborers/soldiers. How do you get laborers/soldiers? Well, you procreate. What better legal system than to mandate a union between a man and women. Moreover, don't waste "your seed". If you must relieve yourself, put it to good use. Guess what, both self indulgence and birth control are contrary to the manufacture of "labor resources". Finally the "defect" rate (we call it infant mortality) was quite high, so keeping the assembly line going 24/7 was important. You can't keep the factory going with same-sex couples, jerking-off, pulling out just in time, or abortion. How do you get compliance? You put the fear of god into people (especially ignorant ones).

And marriage (and no divorce)? Because it simplified inheritance issues. Who begot who clarified who got what? Bastards always complicated this issue as did 2nd spouses and mistresses.

Romantic marriage is a fairly new concept. Marriage was essentially equivalent to a "merger" between families and tribes, often arranged by family elders. Let's see. I have goats, not enough chickens. You have chickens and few goats. I will let your son marry my daughter and once we are family, we will share the goats and the chickens. OK? OK! Let's celebrate. Oh, BTW, my daughter is pure, so we don't have to worry about some illegitimate claim to our conglomerate by some outsider. I presume you can make the same guarantee about your son? Come on Saul, my daughter is 13 and your son is 15, how much could they have done before this. Your right Sholmo. That is why we need to get them married young before they get into trouble.

Fast forward 5000 years. The Bible and the legal systems separate. Firstly, you don't procreate to make ends meet and supply the factory with laborers/soldiers (at least not on a conscious basis). Secondly, the "defect rate" is way down. Inheritance laws govern who gets what. You need more chickens, you go to the supermarket and buy them. Who eats goats? You can't marry off a 13-year old girl and a 15-year old guy goes to jail posting his naked girlfriend on youtube. So, you fool around and entertain yourself as best you can looking for Mrs. Right or Mr. Right. Your parents are typically oblivious to what you are doing unless they stumble on to some cam video of you having virtual sex.

So, you see, there is a big disconnect between the Bible's very practical intent some 5000 years and how we govern ourselves today. We are attempting to reconcile the two when in fact the Bible is essentially outdated. I am not saying there is no god, just that as a rule book much if it has been made irrelevant.

Just a question pertaining to the "sanctity" part..... If you want to get married, it doesn't matter to me. It has no effect on my life and sense of well-being. However, the religious right argues that the Judeo-Christian churches that follow God's teachings view gay/lesbian/bi as being an abomination, and therefore, cannot/will not marry a non-traditional couple. Would a ruling by SCOTUS in favor of gay marriage be the basis of law suits against priests or ministers who refuse to perform the ceremonies on religious grounds?

well considering women on their period are also abominations by strict biblical definition, I frankly don't care who they call an abomination. It simply means unclean, not sinful.

ItsAboutTime -- the gay-lesbian agenda is bigoted. Read your posted definition of bigotry. Holy sh*t, people.

Marriage is restricted in many cases, so why - if the gay-lesbian agenda claims it's about "freedom and equality for all - aren't they talking about abolishing polygamy laws, or other restrictions on who may marriage (after all, it's claimed marriage is a right guaranteed to all)?

It's all a trendy brainwashing for acceptable of homosexual acts.

There is no such thing as a homosexual. Only people who engage in homosexual acts. Look in history (as someone already pointed out). Homosexual acts/orgies existed for millennia.

We still haven't found that "golden gene" that makes a person "gay" or "straight." It doesn't exist; it's not one code for male or female in the developing human.

Lots of genes create "preferences" or "tendencies". Based on environment, we learn what preferences and tendencies are acceptable.

If gays/lesbians wish to state it's their genes that "made me this way", then they too must accept that their preference for vanilla or chocolate, blue or red, long hair/short hair, introversion/extroversion, aggression/timidness are all merely a blend of things -- it depends on what people ACT on.

If it's "all about genes", how can we decry pedophiles, serial killers, sadomachicists? Isn't that rooted somewhere in our genes - and they were just "born that way?"

Please.

There is no such thing as a homosexual, only people who engage in homosexual acts.

Thank you so much for instantly debunking 20 years of scientific research.

Gimmeabreakoradrink

There is no such thing as a homosexual, only people who engage in homosexual acts

Your argument falls apart as soon as it is noted that any sexual act performed by homosexuals is exactly the same as any sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, with gender of the participants being the only difference.

Your premise is also further discredited by the fact that same gender emotional attraction & bonding are central to what we refer to as orientation and not just physical displays of that affection.

It should be obvious. Queers could be perfectly satisfied with civil unions. Why aren't they?

Why? Because civil unions are not an option. Virtually every state that has banned civil unions in their constitutions have also banned civil unions. If civil unions are such an acceptable alternative, why are they banned? Because the marriage bans are enacted by homophobes.

This is funny...like a Three Stooges comedy hour...only there's a whole lot more participants than three. To all those who condemn Christianity, you are biased, plain and simple...and to the ones who don't like the concept of homosexuality, ignore it...it will go away...making it legal doesn't make it right, and you have the "right" to see it as such. Same thing here as in politics...no middle ground, no vision of tolerance, and certainly no sense.

Wonder,

Your view of homosexuality being right or wrong is essentially a Judeo-Christian interpretation. Moreover, what is legal and what is "right" are not always the same concept. Alcohol use is legal even if you use it to excess, but that does not make it right. Obviously, you can't procreate through homosexual acts, but it would seem that as far as enjoyment is concerned either preference will get you there depending on what you are into. Right?

Would a ruling by SCOTUS in favor of gay marriage be the basis of law suits against priests or ministers who refuse to perform the ceremonies on religious grounds?

Why do people persist in making this claim? We have decades of laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc... but when has a member of the clergy EVER been sued for refusing to perform a marriage? Ministers often refuse to marry mixed-faith couples. There was a case reported on MSNBC last year where a "white" church refused to allow the marriage of black couple. So, why would things be different? They wouldn't be. Just another scare tactic by the desperate right that can't win its argument based on the facts.

Our First Amendment bars the government from making any laws that violate a religion just as much as they bar any laws that are informed by religion that would raise one to a state-sponsored religion. The government CAN NOT prosecute any member of clergy or any rabbi or any imam for refusing to marry a couple. Just as someone who is a Southern Baptist will be refused the Catholic Marriage mass, the church is free to say that they will not marry two people of the same gender. Nobody can sue a priest for refusing to marry them based on their denomination, and nobody will be able to sue a church for refusing to marry them - EVER.

This is NOT about religion, people. As much as some might want to make it about religion. It is about the LAW and CONTRACTS - marriage is a CONTRACT and is governed by CONTRACT LAW. It is about civil rights, equal protection under the law, full faith and commerce and CIVIL RIGHTS. Period. Nobody can VOTE to deny a class of people their CIVIL RIGHTS. No matter how much bigots in a state want to believe so. Otherwise you'd have Southern States voting to put back the Jim Crow laws and Separate but Equal into their law books as well as laws against mixed-race and mixed-religion marriages. For example, my husband is nominally Christian but I am not. I also am not from either of the other two Abrahamic faiths. Yet we are married and we were married by my best friend who had a civil celebrant's license (which I myself may get in honor of him because he died 3 years ago from stage IV Colon Cancer). I would be willing to perform marriages that follow more of a form of Christianity in terms of vows as well as the Wiccan, Druidic and other Pagan forms and also strictly civil forms. But ... states can NOT put Civil Rights to a vote. That has already been settled IN the Constitution. States Rights were limited after 1865 during Reconstruction when the Union was reformed and the Confederate States of America ceased to exist.

It has already affected everyone due to the agenda set forth. Gays are clambering to get recognition and attention, as usual. No, it does not take away the right to get married for straight folks. It does change the wording in ceremonies and on official documents all because a group of people decide everyone should just accept them and the modifications necessary to bring gays into the fold. My children's birth certificates state mother and father, not partner A and partner B.

As far as bigotry goes, gays are just as bad as anyone else, if not worse. Sure, part of that is due to the "fight" for rights. These so called rights are not really rights in the sense of being human, but more about what the gays want. If a child wants a cookie before dinner, does he or she get one? Probably not, since it may cause them to be too full to eat proper food for healthy bones and muscle tissue. Marriage is not a right, but more of an institution.

The entry on having too many children is simply ridiculous. You are grasping for something that quite honestly is more of an ethnic or religious issue than a straight/gay thing.

And no, it does not affect who we marry.

Now, what I find interesting and perplexing is the fact that not only once, but twice now, the people of California have voted. The people spoke and their decision was to turn Proposition 8 down. The people who live there voted NO (in a state that is notorious for supporting gay rights). How can this be taken to the Supreme Court now? Do the people not have a say in this? Who elects the politicians? The people. So based on this, and what I see in this country now, we are going to hell in a hand basket. And you gay folks are going down with the rest of us. By the way, I am not at all religious so do not even try that route.

You wish to be gay, be gay. You wish to have sex with your dog, by all means, please feel free. Just don't let me see it. Keep it behind closed doors, like the rest of us. Stop the stupid parades, get rid of the flamboyance. Be normal and go through life like the rest of us.

it is about the influence it has on young minds, not about what adults think.

Children are impressionable and shouldn't see the "gay" stuff EVERYWHERE in society.

Give the kids a chance in life for Pete's sake.

I raised my kids with morals and scruples and I would like my grandkids to have the same option without the outside influence of the gay and bi sexual population.

Just curious, when people were crusading for Suffrage, or civil rights for ethnic minorites, did the inconvenience them wanting it constitute a good reason to deny it?

If gay people are granted the same rights straight people have, which the equal protection clause kind of says they ought to get, you know constitution and all, then there won't be problems of "them queers gettin uppity" which is a good 1960s translation of what you said.

My question was whether under that condition, when the 14th Amendment is upheld, what impact does gay marriage have on heterosexuals

So Roger, it is alright that children are bombarded with constant sexuality as long as its sexuality that you approve of?

PS, if you raised your children to think homosexuality is an abomination, rather than to respect all people then you raised your children to be bigots

Your example is not valid. Suffrage and Race are different in that those were about human equality, not an institutional moment. Women and Blacks were treated as sub human. Gay people are not (well, maybe sometimes by some people-that is another discussion). gays have the same basic rights as straight people. The difference is now gays want to marry and change what has been in place as a ceremonial and institutional entity for many years. Who are you to change tradition? Get your own, if you want one. Marriage is about pro-creation and family. Yes, I realize gay couples can and do adopt. I am on the fence with that one, but if it helps children, then it could be good, I suppose. That all depends on how the "parents" teach and what they teach to the children. That goes for anyone and everyone.

Roger-521043

So, you raised your children that accepting gays/lesbians is unacceptable? It's okay to bully children because of who they are? It's okay the children are murdered because of their sexual orientation?

I raised my kids with morals and scruples and I would like my grandkids to have the same option without the outside influence of the gay and bi sexual population.

Funny, Iran feels the same way you do. Perhaps you and your children should move there? The United States was founded on "Life, LIberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and "We the People" applying to ALL AMERICANs.

Gawdfadda

Gay people are not (well, maybe sometimes by some people-that is another discussion). gays have the same basic rights as straight people.

No they don't. They cannot be legally married, but pay the same taxes as heterosexuals. They can be FIRED from their job simply because of who they are. In some states, they can still be 'bullied, attacked, hurt" because of who they are.

Gays/lesbians DO NOT have the same basic rights as everyone else. If they did, then they could be legally married in the United States of America.

No, I do not agree with all the sexuality in society or on tv, good things my kids didn't like tv when they were growing up. I didn't teach my kids to be bigots, or to hate ANYONE. They grew up and thought it was odd to see 2 girls kissing in college. Thank goodness they do have a sense of reality.

Just because I do not agree with your point of view, there is no need to call me a bigot, there are gays in every family and mine is no different, but it still doesn't make it ok.

I have found that the "gay" population are the same people who are ALWAYS looking for attention because good or bad attention is ok in their eyes as long as someone is noticing them.

Roger-521043

I have found that the "gay" population are the same people who are ALWAYS looking for attention because good or bad attention is ok in their eyes as long as someone is noticing them.

I know, famous heterosexual people never do that right? Nope, it never happens there.

I think your chaps may be too tight and put that gagball back in your mouth....trash talker!

Childish insults would actually mean something, if I respected your opinion. Is this where you act like a child because you were proven incorrect? :-). Aww the egos of some heterosexual males is astounding.

Bottomline, you do not have to like gay marriage, accept it, condone it, want to be in it, think its right/wrong, but I would get USED TO IT. Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT in the United States of America. We do NOT discriminate in this country, period.

For a little while it will be Big, Breaking News and than will die out and be lost in the News of the day.

What impact does it have on anyone if homosexuals aren't allowed to "marry?" Who does it harm?

Why is there no talk of polygamist wanna-bes being "denied rights" to marry as they want? Or parents with their children? Or siblings, et al.?

Bottomline, you do no have to like the age-old definition of marriage (one man, one woman): accept it, condone it, want to be in it, think it's right/wrong, but I would get USED TO IT. Marriage is a right granted to one man/one woman in a union.

Where is there discrimination in the definition of marriage? Arguably, marriage also excludes the deceased, the yet to exist, animals, minors, and many others.

Get over it and curb your carnal desires for a member of the same sex. Love is grand, but not all love/lust is acceptable. Historically, there are many laws on the books outlawing homosexual acts. Its just the society has gone to hell so much, and resources lack, that such laws are no longer enforced, or merely forgotten since all the other laws now needed to keep people in line.

Gimmeabreakoradrink

Are you suggestion that homosexuality be made illegal again?

Severed Head in a Jar

Gimmeabreakoradrink

Are you suggestion that homosexuality be made illegal again?

Sounds to me like he/she just wants to be left alone and not have to think about anything outside of what they already consider to be true. Existential laziness abounds - but the ironic thing is how much energy will be spent defending that laziness.

My children's birth certificates state mother and father, not partner A and partner B.

Psst... legalizing gay marriage won't affect the biology of childbirth. Pass it on.

Historically, there are many laws on the books outlawing homosexual acts.

Historically, there were many laws that outlawed a lot of things that are currently legal. And there are laws now that outlaw things that used to be legal. There are also things that were legal, and then were made illegal, and then made legal again at a later date. What's your point?

Here are some other things that used to be illegal but are now permitted: buying booze, women voting, shopping on Sunday, staying out past curfew, interracial marriage, and swearing. These are all things that I *!@%^&# like.

Because the Union of a man and woman is a uniqe contract that can, by those two parties produce offspring under the sanction of MARRIAGE. If we corrupt that unique union it will open the door to any deviant arguement for any union based on WHO DO YOU LOVE. Can we just let marriage be unique to a man and a woman ?

They grew up and thought it was odd to see 2 girls kissing in college.

That's hot! ;)

I have found that the "gay" population are the same people who are ALWAYS looking for attention because good or bad attention is ok in their eyes as long as someone is noticing them.

You could say the same thing about the black people marching for civil rights in the 1960's. After all, they were "looking for attention" too, right?

What impact does it have on anyone if homosexuals aren't allowed to "marry?" Who does it harm?

It harms homosexuals and denies them their equal rights. How would it harm you if we took away your rights?

Why is there no talk of polygamist wanna-bes being "denied rights" to marry as they want? Or parents with their children? Or siblings, et al.?

All that is just a slippery slope argument and completely different from gay marriage.

Bottomline, you do no have to like the age-old definition of marriage (one man, one woman):

Marriage has been redefined throughout history. here's the legal definition of marriage:The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

As you say, GET USED TO IT! Especially when the SCOTUS rules in favor of it.

Arguably, marriage also excludes the deceased, the yet to exist, animals, minors, and many others.

I guess you're not familiar with the legal concept of informed legal consent?

but not all love/lust is acceptable.

Who cares what you think is acceptable or not. Bigots used to (and some probably still do) say interracial marriage is unacceptable. Who are you to decide what is or is not acceptable?

Historically, there are many laws on the books outlawing homosexual acts.

All of which is null and void since the SCOTUS case: Lawrence v Texas (2003).

gays have the same basic rights as straight people.

They are not allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choosing in most states. So no, they do not have the same basic rights!

Because the Union of a man and woman is a uniqe contract that can, by those two parties produce offspring under the sanction of MARRIAGE.

procreation has nothing to do with marriage, nor is it required for marriage or vice versa.

Can we just let marriage be unique to a man and a woman ?

Why? Present one logical and legal reason why gays should not be allowed to marry? i hope you can do better that your offsping argument, because that fails totally!

Because the Union of a man and woman is a uniqe contract that can, by those two parties produce offspring under the sanction of MARRIAGE.

Hmmm .. what do we say to those heterosexual men and women who are past childbearing age, are infertile or have been sterilized? But, then, why do I bother asking this question? It is never answered because the people who claim that marriage is exclusively for procreation realize the fallacy of their position.

It has already affected everyone due to the agenda set forth. Gays are clambering to get recognition and attention, as usual. No, it does not take away the right to get married for straight folks. It does change the wording in ceremonies and on official documents all because a group of people decide everyone should just accept them and the modifications necessary to bring gays into the fold.

Hmm ... you are aware that you can use any wording in your wedding ceremony that you choose, aren't you? You can use traditional wording if you prefer, and it shouldn't matter to you what other couples use in their ceremonies. As for changing documents, are you so easily confused that changing "husband" and "wife" to "spouse" and "spouse" on future marriage certificates will cause you problems? Official documents are revised and updated all the time ... they have not remained unchanged since 1776.

Veronica 25: You're the only one impressed with yourself.

For all of the people that say gays already have the same rights except marriage you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Gay couples can and have been

Denied the right to see a loved one in the hospital

Denied the right to make medical decisions for their loved ones

Being refused the ability to be with their loved ones when they die

Been refused the ability to attend a loved ones funeral

Had property that they and their loved ones earned stolen from them after their loved ones death by relatives thru the courts

Not be able to put a loved one who cant work on their insurance policy so they get second rate care

There are many more examples of how separate but equal is just as unequal today as it was 50 years ago.

Good morning, that's actually impressive. You found a way to turn gay rights into chauvinism, now go back under your bridge and come back in June when SCOTUS makes a decision.

@troi....your example is incorrect. Technically, we all begin as females and then we males get that extra dangly thing added. :) Look it up, it is a chromosome thing. Based on your example, we males are all just females with appendages. Somehow I doubt most guys are going to be accepting of that definition. I know I am not. BTW, your name is spelled wrong, son. Troy Boy would be correct, unless yer French.

Gawfadda, I guess you don't know what a "boi" is.

I've read several of your posts where you seem to be against the gay lifestyle yet when I finish reading them, you actually make the opposite point. I am no biologist and I am not gay, but it would seem to be that if we all start of as female that some of us might not make the 100% transition to male. Moreover, one could argue that depending on the degree of transition that sexual preference might in fact be genetic.

This leads to an assumptive conclusion and would welcome anyone who knows he answer: Are there more gay guys or lesbians? Is homosexuality largely a male condition? Gawdfadda, your post suggest that it is.

That sounds like a great argument, against divorce

Nowhere in that quote does it say that a similar unity cannot occur for two men or two women.

PS the Greek New Testament was written between 300AD and 500AD

and the biblical definition of the generic word wife?

So you pick and choose Biblical verses to support gay marriage as well!?

Where in the Bible does it explicity say a lot of things about bad behaviors humans manage to muster up in modern times?

Where in the US Constitution does it explicity say "homosexual acts are ok" or "men may marry men" or "aborting a fetus is ok?"

This is all about interpretation of an experimental document per "the times."

Where in the US Constitution does it explicity say "homosexual acts are ok" or "men may marry men" or "aborting a fetus is ok?"

And where does it explicitly say that blacks or women have the same rights as men? After all, blacks and women were not considered to be "real" people at the time it was written. Or non-property owners, for that matter.

It is NOT up to the states to decide who can be married or not. 14th Amendment. We do NOT VOTE on civil rights in the United States of America.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

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

State laws that prohibit gays/lesbians from being married VIOLATES their Constitutional Rights.

I guess we shall see.

Gays and lesbians can get married today. The law is that anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex. That option is available to everyone including gays and lesbians. Just because it is their desire to do something else, does not make it unconstitutional.

Now I have no problem with gay marriage, but that should not be decided by a court.

Yes, we shall. SCOTUS will overturn Prop 8, DOMA, and most likely, make gay marriage legal in the entire united states.

ctviking

No they can't. You are telling gays/lesbians, the only way they can be married, is to do it with someone of the opposite sex. That is DISCRIMINATION, goes against "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the words "We the People" In the United States of America.

We are Republic, we do NOT VOTE on civil rights in the United States. If we do, then we all start VOTING on yours. We'll decide who you can and cannot marry.

joshua: in loving vs virginia, scotus overruled state laws, so clearly its not just a states issue.

ctviking: that logic didn't fare well in loving vs virginia either, since they also argued that everyone had equal rights because "all men could marry any woman of the same race"...and scotus found that did not qualify as equal rights.

Remember I am not an advocate for or against gay marriage. I'm going to sleep well whether it's legal or not. Personally, I do think gay marriage will ultimately be legal. I just hope that it happens the right way.

Itsabouttime,

First of all, "We the people" is merely the subject of the preamble. Nothing can "go against" that. As for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that is from the Declaration of Independence and not U.S. law. The 14th amendment says "no state .... shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Neither Prop 8 or DOMA deprives anyone of those things. If you want to argue that it deprives someone of liberty, well it doesn't do that any more so than my liberty to not pay taxes.

vermontguy,

I'm sorry but I must disagree with the Supreme court in loving vs Virginia. While I am not in favor of disallowing mixed race marriages, I think the court overstepped its authority in its ruling. They were swept up in a wave of racial tensions and ruled with their hearts and not with the law. In Lawrence vs Texas I agree with the dissenting Clarence Thomas who said (I paraphrase) that he felt the law was ridiculous and that if he was on the Texas legislature he would vote to overturn it, but there was nothing in the Constitution forbidding it. I know a lot of you hate judge Thomas but that is EXACTLY what a judge should be willing to say.

If California put a new prop on it's ballot right now to overturn prop 8 I bet it would win. Advocates should use that route and not rely on a court.

ctviking

First of all, We the People is the preamble, but does that not mean 'this entire document' applies to everyone?

Second: SCOTUS has ruled by USING the declaration of independence as part of the 'interpretation' of the United States Constitution.

Third: 14th Amendment also includes this: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Hmmm.. So, if a 'state' bans gay marriage, without 'giving' due process of law (i.e., breaking the law), that is considered UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

Check out Loving Vs Virginia, 1967. SCOTUS USED the same thing to when Virginia said, african americans were not allowed to marry WHITE Americans.

Lastly, all federal appeals courts have struck down DOMA and Prop 8..... hmmm

P.S. As for taxes, thanks for bringing that up. Homosexuals pay taxes, but are not entitled to the same 'marriage' benefits as heterosexuals. Again, its called discrimination.

First of all, We the People is the preamble, but does that not mean 'this entire document' applies to everyone?

Yes, it applies to everyone.

14th Amendment also includes this: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Hmmm.. So, if a 'state' bans gay marriage, without 'giving' due process of law (i.e., breaking the law), that is considered UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

Defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does not kill anyone, imprison anyone, or take their property from them so that argument does not apply in this case.

Check out Loving Vs Virginia, 1967. SCOTUS USED the same thing to when Virginia said, african americans were not allowed to marry WHITE Americans.

I mentioned it in my previous post. While I do not agree with that law I do not believe the court should get involved in it.

Lastly, all federal appeals courts have struck down DOMA and Prop 8

They should not have done so

As for taxes, thanks for bringing that up. Homosexuals pay taxes, but are not entitled to the same 'marriage' benefits as heterosexuals. Again, its called discrimination.

Yes they are. Any man is allowed to marry any woman. That option is available to gay and lesbians too. Just because their desire is different does not mean that the Constitution dictates that the law must be changed. It is my desire to not participate in Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare (meaning I don't pay for those services either). How is the Supreme Court altering a marriage law to accommodate the desire of a minority any different than my desire on this other issue?

ITS: The case of saying race is akin to sexual preference and somehow in the Constitution there is a clause that says this type of sexuality should be protected by law just isn't there. Those court cases, all of them had nothing to do with homosexual rights. Chicken rustlers, sodomy, and Loving which was a racial issue in a STATE. I wish some people who keep referencing history actually knew any rather than pick and choose aspects to make themselves feel vindicated for their views.

does not take their property away from them??? HOO BOY YOU ARE CLUELESS! Among the 1000+ federally guaranteed benefits of marriage are: inehritance rights, automatic power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, guaranteed minimal estate rights, automatic adoption of partner's child, etc, etc. Sorry but not allowing gay marriage does in fact deprive people of property and liberty and don't you ever again say otherwise. You need to watch a family get broken up over this issue because the one father suddenly dies in an accident or something. You, are, clueless.

Patrick,

You don't have the right to tell me what I can say or not say so shove it straight up your a$$. All those rights you cite are available to gays and lesbians. All they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex as the law dictates. If you don't like that law, then change it - don't rely on the Supreme Court to override the will of the people or the legislature because you don't like it.

oh right, marry someone you have 0 affections for, and then that just splits resources four ways instead of two. Get your head out of the ground. And the will of the people has yet to be enforced on this issue either.

patrick: I would assume they new all this when they hooked up and would plan accordingly. Like the two women, where the other woman didn't trust her partner enough to have joint ownership, so she ended up with a huge tax bill.

bob-2476682

ITS: The case of saying race is akin to sexual preference and somehow in the Constitution there is a clause that says this type of sexuality should be protected by law just isn't there.

Yes it is. 14th Amendment. Read it. Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that says "We discriminate based on sexual orientation is there?"

Those court cases, all of them had nothing to do with homosexual rights. Chicken rustlers, sodomy, and Loving which was a racial issue in a STATE. I wish some people who keep referencing history actually knew any rather than pick and choose aspects to make themselves feel vindicated for their views.

Specifically no there isn't. However, show me one constitutional amendment that provides for heterosexual marriage :). , All laws are based on past precedence. Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT, period. Scotus will see it the same way for gay marriage.

How is marriage a "civil right?"

If you use that as a reason for gays to marry, then any single person ('gay' or straight) cannot have a civil right.

A civil right is something that is present regardless of time or circumstance.

Even then, we can restrict that -- example is when you can VOTE. Voting is a guaranteed civil right in the Constitution; marriage is not.

The Constitution also provides power to create laws. The laws are that marriage are defined a certain way. Homosexual marriage is not a civil right, it's an esoteric lobby for sanctioning of people's lifestyle choices and actions.

I have read the 14th amendment and did not find sexual preference or marriage anywhere.

ctviking

Would you support a Constitutional amendment making homosexuality illegal?

How is marriage a "civil right?"

The SCOTUS blatantly said so in their landmark decision: Loving v. Virginia (1967).

If you use that as a reason for gays to marry, then any single person ('gay' or straight) cannot have a civil right.

You're confused. Any single person has the right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing, except gays in most states (for now).

Even then, we can restrict that -- example is when you can VOTE. Voting is a guaranteed civil right in the Constitution; marriage is not.

We are a constitutional Republic, not a true democracy. So popular vote cannot be used to deny someone their rights.

The Constitution also provides power to create laws. The laws are that marriage are defined a certain way.

All laws passed must also pass constitutonal muster, lest they be deemed unconstitutonal and struck down.

I have read the 14th amendment and did not find sexual preference or marriage anywhere.

Since marriage is a civil right, the 14th Amendment makes that right applicable to all.

All those rights you cite are available to gays and lesbians. All they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex as the law dictates.

That same argument was used by bigots and racists to deny interracial marriages in the South.

If you don't like that law, then change it - don't rely on the Supreme Court to override the will of the people or the legislature because you don't like it.

Apparently, you don't know how due process of law works.

Someday you will read Loving verus Virginia and realize the challenge was mixed race, and the law states man and women. Why would or do you try to distort the fact and ruling of the case? It has nothing to do with homosexuals and in no way shape or form can you compare the two. P.S. Write out the part in the 14th amendment that says marriage or sexual preference is a civil right.

Someday you will read Loving verus Virginia and realize the challenge was mixed race, and the law states man and women

The Loving decision did not specify mixed races or specific genders. Someday bob, you'll learn that. But I doubt it!

Why would or do you try to distort the fact and ruling of the case?

I'm quite familiar with the case. What "fact" am i distorting exactly?

It has nothing to do with homosexuals and in no way shape or form can you compare the two.

Wrong! It's a precedent stating marriage to be a civil right, which can be used to argue for marital rights for gays.

P.S. Write out the part in the 14th amendment that says marriage or sexual preference is a civil right.

bob, your knowledge of civics and juriosprudence is quite laughable and one dimensional, especially if you can't see how legal precedents can affect other cases and rulings! But it won't matter in a few month anyway. once the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, you'll basically have nothing left to argue or fall back on.

I am glad I live in a state where our state constitution states marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I really don't think the Supreme Court will overturn the will of the people.

Man of Steel, SCOTUS can overturn any law, even if voted on by the people, if that law is unconstitutional.

@Man

World comes crashing down in 3...2...1...

gordy: The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of
a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial
marriages. § 258,§ 20-59

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation,
provides:

Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person
intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white
person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in
the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

Like I said you did not read it and like all the other cases you cite, you pick and choose what opinion or statement a specific Justice made as to your position.

I really shouldn't have to go to the United States Judicial site to get the correct information to counter the bogus information you represent as fact.

P.S. How does racial equality and rights mimic rights for a sexual practice? If a Judge says it does I would like to read how he will explain it. Sexual practice is not a right. Show me in any government document where it is written.

gordy: I see you didn't respond. "P.S. Write out the part in the 14th amendment that says marriage or sexual preference is a civil right."

Was your implied answer I am waiting for them to write a new law for civil unions?

There will be no law for civil unions. Marriage is a right for all Americans

Nope!

ctviking

Would you support a Constitutional amendment making homosexuality illegal?

No I would not

This has nothing to do with a "sexual practice."

that's just ignorant.

Like I said you did not read it and like all the other cases you cite, you pick and choose what opinion or statement a specific Justice made as to your position.

You do know the SCOTUS opinion on a case is law, and legally binding, right bob? Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the court in the Loving decision (emphasis mine):

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of
a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial
marriages

Which were rendered null and void by the aforementioned SCOTUS decision!

I really shouldn't have to go to the United States Judicial site to get the correct information to counter the bogus information you represent as fact.

Maybe because I provided actual fact!

P.S. How does racial equality and rights mimic rights for a sexual practice?

You're still confusing sex with marriage bob. It's no wonder you lose arguments like this as often as bigots lose cases like this in the courts. In other words, every single time!

"P.S. Write out the part in the 14th amendment that says marriage or sexual preference is a civil right."

You don't even know how the 14th Amendment applies to law I see. No surprise there. Let me see if I can simply this for you: marriage is a "basic civil right," as determined by the SCOTUS. Therefore it is also a constitutional right. The 14th Amendment provides for equality under the law, and makes the constitution applicable to all states. Therefore, if a legally consenting adult couple is denied their right to marry, then it is in violation of the 14th Amendment! Do that clear things up for you bob?

Nope!

Wrong again bob! And that point will be driven home when the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage.

This has nothing to do with a "sexual practice."

Bob often confuses or equates sexual practices with marriage.

that's just ignorant.

That's just bob! :D

legally, you're completely wrong. lol. Whatever the law says, is what goes, and if the law says that "a man can marry a man", then a man can marry a man.

the law makes it so. :)

I'm legally married to a man. Hmm.. Does that mean the sun is the moon?

@Gregorio-392454

"A man cannot marry a man. You can declare the sun is the moon, even make a law stating it, but it does not make it so." Yeah people like you said the same about interracial marriage prior to the 1967 Supreme Court decision deeming it unconstitutional.

DOC227, don't be a prick (although it seems easy for you).

"People like you"...hatred and bigotry runs through your blood too. Pot, meet kettle.

Do NOT compare the legitimate dicrimination and civil right issues of blacks in AMerican to ANYTHING with the gay/lesbian agenda. It's childish, riddled with error and hyperbole (and diminishes the real discrimination blacks actually endured!).

ItsAboutTime, legally? Right, move out of your liberal-bastion state.

This is NOT about marriage equalities or civil rights. It it were, the gay-lesbian agenda would be acting to strike down any and all laws placing ANY restriction on American marriages (polygamy, blood-relative unions, et al.).

It's all about one group of lifestyle demanding preferred treatment. BTW, why are gays/lesbians acting to have the same rights for the non-married (singles)? If you remain single (also a 'civil right'?!?!), why be taxed at a higher rate, be denied providing healthcare and other services to one other person in society who needs it?

This is and always was about people who engage in homosexual acts gaining a preferential legal right or treatment, while leaving others in the dust.

Gimmeabreakoradrink

You forgot to mention the obligatory bestiality/pedophilia argument.

It's all about one group of lifestyle demanding preferred treatment.

Of all the idiotic rants from you idiotic bigots, this is the one I understand the least. What is the "preferred treatment" that gay people are demanding? The law currently says, A marriage can only be between two people of opposite gender. They are asking for the last three words to be taken out. How is that preferred treatment?

You're the one asking for preferred treatment. You want marriage to be defined so that you can marry who you want, but others cannot. I suppose it is asking too much for you to evince any sign of actual intelligence, but could you at least try to make sense?

Gimme, considering the NAACP has come out in favor of gay marriage rights, calling it the "civil rights fight for this generation," I would say the comparison is accurate.

Gregorio, you got it right, that man can not marry man, it is at the least morally and physically wrong not to mention spirirtually wrong. Politicians, lower courts, or the supreme court can rule in favor of the homosexuals but that still doesn't make in the right thing to do. We are all aware of how politicians and judges make decisions based on their own agendas and how they think the political winds are blowing. To some degree, we as Christians and hetrosexuals can put some of the blame on ourselves. We have quietly set by over the years with our mouths shut and not speaking out while the perverts and criminal elements have slowly but effectively taken over our country and legal system. But I do not think it is too late to regain control over our lives and our country however we will need to work hard at it.

armysf

Amen brother. Most Americans don't condone sodomy and we can love our gay neighbors but we will not promote perversion as normal or as a civil right.

It's all about one group of lifestyle demanding preferred treatment.

Well, currently, it seems to be bigoted heterosexuals who are demanding preferred treatment.

well, based on the "tradition" argument, we need to scrap the constitution and let the most powerful man fight his way to kingship, and the rest of us become peasants.

oddly, they don't want to keep THAT tradition. Lol, flaming hypocrites. :)

Since when is Sodomy a Civil right?

Private sexual conduct between two consenting adults is a civil right. The government has no justification to control the private sexual behavior of consenting adults.

I wish your ignorance would go away, since its not a mental illness, at least according to the experts.

do you teach your kids that the earth is flat, too? how pathetic you are.

Your teachings will surely drive your children to real "mental illness".

I will continue to teach my children that gays are decent people just suffering from a mental illness

Then you're teaching your kids a lie and being willfully ignorant in the matter, especially since the APA determined that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

So I am so supposed to teach them that homosexuality is normal? I think if our founding fathers thought that, we wouldn't be having this debate 237 years later. I am sure they never forsaw the complete moral decay of this country and that this behavior would ever be considered acceptable. Hey Vermontgay, you teach your kids what you want. I will teach mine what I want, and they can teach theirs what they want. I will not succumb to the gay communities liberal national immoral agenda.

So I am so supposed to teach them that homosexuality is normal?

Sure, why not? It's as normal as heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality.

I think if our founding fathers thought that, we wouldn't be having this debate 237 years later.

Just like we wouldn't have debates on slavery, women voting, or interracial marriages?

I am sure they never forsaw the complete moral decay of this country and that this behavior would ever be considered acceptable.

Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.

I will teach mine what I want

You mean bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance? Sounds like child abuse to me.

. I will not succumb to the gay communities liberal national immoral agenda.

What "agenda" would that be?

bddiggity, Being gay is not mental illness. Teaching children to hate others is abnormal. There are gay psychiatrists who treat abnormal people like yourself.

@bddiggity

Hurricanes represent less than 0.01% of all the storms that happen on Earth during the course of a year. And yet it is natural that hurricanes happen in the first place and normal that that happen every year.

Homosexuals, on the other hand comprise a much greater percentage of the human population.

You see, natural and normal have nothing to do with frequency. Natural only means that something happens in nature, which homosexuality does, and normal means that something happens consistently enough over time that it is always expected to be there, which is also true about homosexuality given how it is addressed in every era of recorded human history.

DOC227, you hit the nail on the head...I, too, was wondering how 1Man+1Woman=Marriage knows sooooo much about "gay sex shops" and ordering juvenile dolls.

Believe what you want, if it makes you feel better about what you are.

It also sounds like he has a doll fetish.

silly post. Gay marriage changes nothing on this issue. If you believe that being gay is wrong, gays sinned well before they get married. duh. Unless you think all gays are celebrate before marriage? :)

Has nothing to do with sex, it's about voting into law that we don't agree with GOD or his laws... we and our laws trump GOD's!

but premarital sex (as just one obvious example) isn't illegal, so our laws have ALWAYS "trumped" god's. Your focus on gays is disturbing. :)

No because sex is not ordained under GOD, marriage is... I focus on the target at hand.

wrong again! God says that premarital sex is wrong (correct?), so if you think gay marriage is wrong because god says it is wrong, you have to be for making premarital sex illegal too. unless you are a flaming hypocrite. :)

"I focus on the target at hand" = "I don't want to talk about making ALL sins illegal because i'm a hypocrite". :)

and I even have to correct you on christianity too! lol.

sex, too, is "ordained by god", so you are wrong again: "We don't know if such speculations are accurate, but sexuality is to remain pure nonetheless. This means that the marriage bed must not violate the commandments of God in deed or thought -- no adultery, no pornography, no voyeurism, no bestiality, incest, etc. The sexual union is God-ordained and God-given and must be experienced in a godly way within marriage."

No because sex is not ordained under GOD, marriage is

You're half right. Marriage has nothing to do with god either.

We and are our beliefs-tradition's.

Tradition is no justification to deny people their equal rights.

When you say"In GOD we trust" and you don't.

I never say it regardless.

When you say one nation under GOD,

I never say that either.

betrayal. God has been with us from the very beginning America... and we were, for the most part, with him.

That's nice. prove it!

we and our laws trump GOD's!

Yes, they do!

GOOD POST, and true.

"One nation under God" was added to the pledge in the 50's. It wasn't always there.

Funny that the one thing you don't quote and that is in the Constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

That little tidbit means that our Laws are not predicated on what is in the bible.

If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.

Chill man, we'll have full Marriage Equality soon and you won't have to see the stories anymore. This year in fact.