P.S.: they should have the same rights to marriages & divorces...and, when they divorse, they will cite 'irreconcilable similarities' - that's the only difference with straight couples

... time to recognize the God-given rights of our gay brothers and sisters.

But that's just it. Most Christians, unfortunately, do not believe it is a God-given right.

...but this is not a christian nation...although Christians are welcome, so are supporters of gay rights.

..but this is not a christian nation

This is true, but those on the political right do not see it that way.

I was watching, (it pains me to say this) Faux News one day, and the commentators said "this [America] is a country founded on christian beliefs; there is no doubt about that."

Point being, there are many people who [wrongly] believe this is a christian nation, and that their mission is to uphold "christian values." And hence the reason why they oppose gay marriage.

The Company

... time to recognize the God-given rights of our gay brothers and sisters.

But that's just it. Most Christians, unfortunately, do not believe it is a God-given right.

I wouldn't say most... Just the most vocal and least tolerant portion of those that consider themselves some form of Christian.

+1 to inmissouri's comment

With the old guard receding into history, with the new generation growing up, gay marriages will be legalized...just a matter of time.

Today's new generation - the Millennials (age 19-30) - is better educated, more tolerant, has grown up with diversity, more supportive of gay marriages, more supportive of stronger government.

.

so even without Supreme Court decision, these millennials will take over this country soon and enact federal law to legalize gay marriages...it's just a matter of time.

.

We shall overcome.

That's where you are wrong...this is a Christian nation.

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. - George Washington

“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” - United States Congress 1782

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. - John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. - Patrick Henry

“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison

“[The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.” - Andrew Jackson

In 1844, the Court said, "Christianity is part of our common law."

“This is a Christian nation” - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

In 1930, the U.S. Supreme Court said this: "We are a Christian people, according to our motto."

Kumar, I can find plenty of quotes where the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court expressly say that we are not a Christian nation and were not founded on Christianity or any other religion. We are a Constitutional republic, not a theocracy. We do not base our laws on religion, any religion.

@kumar, and this is why republicans lost the presidential election, again. Republicans and the republican platform wanted to take the country back to times before the civil rights legislation passed, before the emancipation proclamation and according to you back to the revolutionary war. Sorry, step aside - we're moving forward.

That's where you are wrong...this is a Christian nation.

Demonstratably false! This is a secular nation which happens to have many christians in it. Perhaps you can point out where in the Constitution it states we're a "christian nation?"

In 1844, the Court said, "Christianity is part of our common law."“This is a Christian nation” - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892In 1930, the U.S. Supreme Court said this: "We are a Christian people, according to our motto."

Personal opinions and stated in dictum, which means it's opinion only and not legally binding! If you're going to lie, you might want to try harder.

This country was founded on christian beliefs

Also false!

to define marriage as 1 man and 1 women and thats the federal law..

The law, established by the SCOTUS, deems marriage to ba a "basic civil right." It doesn't specify 1 man or 1 woman.

the supremes will NOT change the constitution for a few degenerates

They won't be changing it. They will beinterpreting it, as well as previous precedents.

and if they dont like it they can always move to a Muslim country were homosexuality is a crime punishable by death !

Is that supposed to be a threat?

if they want to have a partner forever than they can get a civil union which is a contract, just like a marriage license...

Civil unions is not the same as marriage and is inherently unconstitutional!

Yeah.. USA has always been secular. The first major milestone was the Bill of Rights, but its first best confirmation was Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

.

This 1802 Jefferson letter was to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

.

Actually Virginia had official state religion (Anglican) until 1830s when they changed to abide by 'freedom of religion' in the constitution.

.

for more information, consult this website which includes a copy of the Danbury letter -

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Kumar,

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. - Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry never said that. It was written in the 1950's, but a writer by the name of David Barton misread it as being a quote from PH.

The same is true for the Madison quote as well. That same author, David Barton, is to blame.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU POST....
YOU WILL GET ARRESTED....

A POLICE STATE HAS ARRIVED IN AMERICA

RICHMOND, Va. — A former Marine involuntarily detained for psychiatric evaluation for posting strident anti-government messages on Facebook has received an outpouring of support from people who say authorities are trampling on his First Amendment rights.

Brandon J. Raub, 26, has been in custody since FBI, Secret Service agents and police in Virginia's Chesterfield County questioned him Thursday evening about what they said were ominous posts talking about a coming revolution. In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

Police – acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional – took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime.

A Virginia-based civil liberties group, The Rutherford Institute, dispatched one of its attorneys to the hospital to represent Raub at a hearing Monday. A judge ordered Raub detained for another month, Rutherford executive director John Whitehead said.

"For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon," Whitehead said.

Raub's mother, Cathleen Thomas, said by telephone that the government had overstepped its bounds.

"The bottom line is his freedom of speech has been violated," she said.

Thomas said her son, who served tours as a combat engineer in Iraq and Afghanistan, is "concerned about all the wars we've experienced" and believes the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. One of his Facebook posts, she said, pictured the gaping hole in the Pentagon and asked "where's the plane?"

Whitehead said he found nothing alarming in Raub's social media commentaries. "The posts I read that supposedly were of concern were libertarian-type posts I see all the time," he said.

The big concern, Whitehead said, is whether government officials are monitoring citizens' private Facebook pages and detaining people with whom they disagree.

Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency.

"We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts," she said. "Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints."

Whitehead said some of the posts in question were made on a closed Facebook page that Raub had recently created so he questioned whether anyone from the public would have complained about them.

"Support Brandon Raub" Facebook pages have drawn significant interest, and other Internet sites had numerous comments from people outraged by the veteran's detention.

Raub's supporters characterized the detention as an arrest, complaining he was handcuffed and whisked away in a police cruiser without being served a warrant or read his rights. But authorities say it wasn't an arrest because Raub doesn't face criminal charges.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state's emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous.

He said Raub was handcuffed because he resisted officers' attempts to take him into custody.

1. 8/12/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detained_n_1817484.html

Hey, Peel-Layer who writes:

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU POST....
YOU WILL GET ARRESTED....

.

Hi, I am ............pigotry...defined as governmen by pigs, of pigs, and for pigs.

Kumar and Mike,

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, isunconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violatesthe Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it.

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
..........Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And

John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."
..........To John Taylor

And

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And...

Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

And don't even try to give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee crap. Your Constitution also has a little something called incorporation through the 14th Amendment in it. So "states" or "local government" rights as argued through the 10th hasn't been applicable since, oh 1866 or so.

And of course...

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

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

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

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

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

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So....

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

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?

Or, in easier terms...

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

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

Sarah, thank you more than I can express for your post. I've copied and pasted to a document. The problem I have with all the opposition to gay marriage is that it's based on RELIGION, NOT LAW. The last time I checked, no religion can force laws based on their particular interpretation of morality on the rest of us.

Uh David, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Marriage was determined to be a right in Loving v. Virgina.

Personally I just like Firburgers, but hey-the gays should have rights too, I would say it's long over due !!!!!!!!!!

David,

Actually Loving v Virginia is applicable, not because of what it's about, but because of the argument that FAILED. The defense argument, which is basically the same as the argument in favor of DOMA, was shot down by the court. That's as important as any quote in the case.

Regardless...

What the government DOESN'T have the right to do, is bestow privileges on some of us, via a marriage contract, but then not allow all people to enter that contract without a good reason.

That reason would be encompassed in my questions. Can you answer them???

David-2637217 - Sexual orientation is not considered a a suspect class by any constitutional privision or federal law.

Both race any gender are suspect classes. The question you need to answer is what compelling interest does the government have in the relative race or gender of your spouse?

Sarah - Fantastic post, as usual. I love it when some yahoo wanders on here with an attempt at some lame legal or constitutional argument to support their right-wing craziness and you come on and kick the crap out of them. It just makes my day. Keep up the good work - you're an inspiration.

I am a male and I want to be on 'Say Yes to the Dress.' I will sue them if they deny me my rights to do this!

...but this is not a christian nation.....

Sure Piggy.

He's absolutely correct, this is NOT a christian nation! I defy you to prove otherwise!

IDO,

Don't you think if this was a Christian nation, the founders would have made that crystal clear by saying something in the Constitution about, "This being a Christian nation" or "Governed through the laws of Christianity"???

I love how you people all but worship the founding fathers, but then try to use the most cryptic, ambiguous passages from non-governing documents, in order to try and say this is a Christian nation.

If they were as smart as you claim, and Christianity were that important to them, don't you think they would have made it crystal clear???

the USA is NOT a Christian Nation.. but and especially not a mostly Christian nation.. but it is a nation of mostly Christians.. BIG DIFFERENCE in the two...

States can NOT violate the constitutution.. and the supreme court won't change for a bunch of deviates.. but California courts have ruled the deviate law against gay marriage violated the rights given by gays in the contitution.. they will either legalize gay marriage for california. or the nation... very doubtful they can find reason to overturn the lower court decistion which tossed out the deviate man and woman only marriage law, known as proposition hate (8)

rights endowed to me by my creator, are inalienable, and can't be taken away by democractic voting

Kumar-889209: That's where you are wrong...this is a Christian nation.

Well, no, it really isn't. For example -- Let's take a closer, more accurate look out our Founders and
their Documents. (And, NO! I won't consider those "quotes" you posted, Kumar, which have been edited by Falwell and Robertson that you christians always find on their websites...SORRY!)

The Founders NEVER agreed that Christianity was the singular religion in America or that they used christian inspiration in the Founding. What is the Smithsonian to some people...an empty building? Some people have the impression that the Framers were bashful, or reluctant to put their most cherished values
into the writings that Founded this country. Do the brainwashed people see, somewhere, in the primary Founding documents of this Country, something that looked like "bible"? Did you see, ANYWHERE, where your mythical jesus-creature was listed as the source for our laws or government??

The Four Primary documents laying the Foundation of this country: 1) The Bill of Rights, 2) The Declaration of Independence, 3) The Articles of Confederation and 4) the US Constitution -- and nowhere, NOWHERE in ANY OF THEM, will you find any of these words: christ, bible, jesus, christianity. NOWHERE.

This ‘value’ that people (usually xians) seem to think they AGREED UPON never shows up ANYWHERE in the primary, most influential documents that Founded this country. And, that chaps their butts so bloody that they insist they are there, even though they are not... So they lie, and say they are there in spirit because one of the Framers wrote some garbage about their jesus-creature on a cocktail napkin or in a letter to his Aunt Phyllis. LOL... YET, Jefferson himself thought the Bible was so full of garbage, that he re-wrote his own version of it (published, and called the Jefferson Bible) to distill out the basic "Golden Rule" teachings and to eliminate the superstitious deity-BS. However, adding to or subtracting from the BuyBull was out-and-out blasphemy to any true believer at that time!! But some morons will absolutely demand that Framers like Jefferson believed jesus was the son of god, when he clearly did not. Jefferson loved the moral teachings and thought the spiritual teachings were bunk and corrupted, claiming many times that Paul (the largest alleged contributor to the NT) was the biggest fraud and “first corruptor to the doctrines of Jesus”. In the Jefferson Bible, miracles and references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus are notably absent. The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus's birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. The work ends with the words: "Now, in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." There is no mention of the resurrection. --– hardly the position of a true christian… Anyway…

In fact, those Founding documents prove that he (and the others) did not feel as many mindless people will claim today. The Framers AGREED to use terminologies consistent with Deists, which is what many of the Founding Fathers were. They didn't use biblical terminologies. They used phrases and references like this one, found in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them…”

Not the biblical “jesus”…but the Deist reference to “Nature’s God and the Laws of Nature”.

Look it up: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

If you’d even like further proof of the non-Christian intent and non-Christian foundation of this government, look to a very well-known treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United
States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, unanimously ratified by the Congress of the United States, June 10, 1797. It’s here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

In that treaty is this language in Article 11: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Wow! christians can put their spin on that all they like. In fact, they can spin it like they spin phrases in the Bible. Give it the usual “it says that, but it doesn’t really mean that…in fact, it means the exact
opposite, that the US was founded on Christianity…blah blah blah. Someone just forgot to tell our ENTIRE US CONGRESS at that time…” LOL!! (You’ll note that none of our official treaties or Congressional documents states the reverse…)

Anyway… let the mindless attempt to rewrite (or ignore) history all they like. Mindless people cannot change the well known official writings and founding documents, recorded for all time, no matter how hard they try. No amount of hand-mumbling/praying to their cult god will change it, either. It is what it is FOR ALL TIME.

AND FINALLY, MOST IMPORTANTLY, there is THE US CONSTITUTION ITSELF -- which guarantees religious freedom, the Freedom to WORSHIP ANY GOD or NO GOD AT ALL. This directly violates the bible's first commandment (not to "have any other gods before me") and violates all the scriptures in the new
testament stating that the only way to heaven is through jesus, etc. etc. Any governmental encouragement of worship other than the bible, bible-god, jesus...that is ALL in direct violation of the
bible's main scriptural laws, and is therefore, not only "non-christian" but specifically Anti-Christian and Anti-Bible.

Sorry, but that is the truth. Trying to convince people that the Framers were bashful and just didn't
put their most cherished values down in writing when founding this country is preposterous. Add up all the words in those four documents. There are a LOT! A whole lotta words. A whole lotta values expressed there, too...and you're trying to say they just left out this "christ" or "bible" nonsense, and any mention of it, while they crafted the Foundation of the United States of America? That they just found no reason to express that cult garbage in and among all those words and values, because, well, just
because? Or, maybe because they were too bashful to express it and write down how they really felt?? Heh heh...I don't think so...

Nobody buys that BS. And, ignoring everything else, to encourage and welcome the Freedom of ALL RELIGIONS is directly anti-bible and anti-christian. And THAT IS a primary basis and foundation of the United States of America.

Sarah-3043284

Your post is the best one I have seen on this subject.

Now let me get this right -

Larry King is getting his 8th divorce,
Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time,
Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage.

Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries were married for 72 days

Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?

Yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?

If its perceived as being such a bad institution by the gay community, then why are they beating down the door for this right thats considered so meager and worthless? It seems ludicrious that one would want a right of a communal state that is denigrated ubiqituously for anything other than bragging rights and very little for intrinsic reasons of love, commitment and dedication. If the divorce rate is perceived as high now, just wait until a demographic that has a poor track record of fidelity and thinks so little of the institution gets a hold of it.

If its perceived as being such a bad institution by the gay community, then why are they beating down the door for this right thats considered so meager and worthless?

Probably for the same reasons as straight people. Many heterosexuals disparage marriage too, yet you don't question why straight couples want to, or should have, the right to get married.

And poor track record of infidelity??? See also, straight men.

Thank you, Sarah... I always love seeing your posts! :)

demographic that has a poor track record of fidelity

who would that be? couldn't be gays, they don't have a record yet.. cause marriage isn't allowed. snf my self, I was in a monogamous gay relationship for 15 years.. do you know how many Kardashs that is?? well I'll tell ya.. cause you probably can't do math, it's some 76 kardashes.. that's right.. gay fidelity that was 76 times longer than a straight marriage...

Sarah - I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this post and respond to your post. The rational basis being put forward by Prop 8 proponents - is that Civil Recognition of Marriage does serve a purpose - it furthers the agenda of fostering the best environment for raising the next generation. Our children statistically do better when they have a loving mother and a father raising them. That does not mean that children of single parents are going to be bad and misadjusted, or that children of a heterosexual married couple are going to be great, and well adjusted. What it does mean is that overall children need to have parental role models from both sexes in order to relate to all of the population (male and female) as well as possible, and that by promoting heterosexual marriage the Government gives the next generation the best CHANCE of doing that.

Now - you may not agree with that rational basis.Thats your decision. However, the argument is cogent enough to meet rational basis review by the Court. And thats all thats required. It doesn't have to be proven to the degree that laws under strict judicial scrutiny do. An analgoud example - a State can limit issuing drivers licenses to those 16 and older. It could be argued that age has nothing to do with - that a mature 14 year old with the proper skills can drive equally well as a 16 year old. But since Drivers Licenses are considered a privilege - all the State must do is proffer a rational, statistical based, reason/ basis for their restriction.

David, according to numerous studies, the children of homosexual parents fair just as well as the children of heterosexual parents.

Our children statistically do better when they have a loving mother and a father raising them.

Actually, all properly performed studies show that it is the presence of two parents (regardless of gender) that contribute best to a quality upbringing. Those same studies show that single parents can negate the issue by adding in another commonly available caregiver, such as a grandparent.

What it does mean is that overall children need to have parental role models from both sexes in order to relate to all of the population (male and female) as well as possible,

No data persists to prove this contention. The one study that did was debunked as highly flawed and heavily biased.

it furthers the agenda of fostering the best environment for raising the next generation.

Which has been proven WRONG repeatedly, especially when one considers that NO state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license. In short, the state does not give two @!$%#s whether a married couple will produce children; and it is certainly not illegal to have children outside of marriage.

Our children statistically do better when they have a loving mother and a father raising them. That does not mean that children of single parents are going to be bad and misadjusted, or that children of a heterosexual married couple are going to be great, and well adjusted. What it does mean is that overall children need to have parental role models from both sexes in order to relate to all of the population (male and female) as well as possible, and that by promoting heterosexual marriage the Government gives the next generation the best CHANCE of doing that.

WRONG AGAIN, as this has also been repeatedly debunked:

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus non-heterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006

you may not agree with that rational basis.Thats your decision. However, the argument is cogent enough to meet rational basis review by the Court.

STILL WRONG. The argument is not "cogent" at all, and was found by the courts to have no merit. Furthermore, the courts have come to the conclusion that strict scrutiny is required for such cases, since they involve gender discrimination, and gender is a suspect class. And, as skrekk asked above, what compelling state interest is there in the relative genders of two people in a marriage? You cannot argue that children provide that interest, because as I noted above, the state has no interest in whether a married couple has children.

If that's the best you've got, David, you have proven one thing: you have proven WHY your side keeps LOSING in the courts.

california courts have ruled that Prop 8 violated the states constitution and that was appealed to the circut court that found prop 8 violated both the california consitution and the U.S. consitution.. the decison is at the feet of the supreme court to decide if the lower courts have correctly ruled... which according to the lower courts.. the plaintiffs reason was found lacking and no evidence was provided.. NONE.. NOTHING to support the appeals.. Gay marriage has been ruled Constitutional.. it's up to the supreme court to set precedent for the entire nation... I don't see them overturning the lower courts without evidence compared to the rulings that it dicriminates... we shall see..

ErinNJ - Ok, I agree with you that if strict judicial scrutiny was applied it would be a tougher feat for Prop 8 to stand. Under those circumstance you have to prove a compelling state interest, and that the method of restriction is the least restrictive possible to achieve the legitimate state compelling interest. However, if the Rational Basis review is used, the opinion of the APA, or even the Court itslef has no relevance. As Justice Stevens said in 2008, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws" All it has to be is "rationally related". It can't be illogical - like 2+5 = 12

Shrek and you make an interesting point in regards to whether gender (a legitmate suspect class) could raise the level of scrutiny to intermediate or strict. But is it really restircting a gender of anything? If you are a man, you are freely able to civilly marry a woman. And likewise if you a woman you are able to freely enter into a marriage with a man. The option is there for both sexes, should they choose to enter into it. I am not sure how you restricting access to the privilege based on gender. Civil Heterosexual Marriage is what it is. It is open and available to both sexes.

If you can amend the US Constitution to add sexual orientation as a protected class you might prevail. Otherwise I think if SCOTUS takes the case, Prop 8 will prevail, and the Nonth Circuit will be overturned (Like they usually are by the Supremes)

Walker found that the Prop 8 undermined both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, arguing that “[e]ach challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation: ”

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

I don't think the supremes will see it any differently.. they have no basis to make an opposising decision and overturn these.... prop 8 grants special privledges denied to gays.. also a violation of California state constitution,

Jim420 - Doubt SCOTUS will see it that way - especially since it would affect every other state that has constitutional provisions defining marriage to be between man and woman. BTW - it can't be a violation of the California State Constitution since it is an amendment to the California State Constitution.

David-2637217 - If you are a man, you are freely able to civilly marry a woman. And likewise if you a woman you are able to freely enter into a marriage with a man. The option is there for both sexes, should they choose to enter into it.

That's the bigoted logic the racists in Virginia used to deny mixed-race marriage, that there was no discrimination because all persons were prohibited from marrying a person of a different race. SCOTUS rejected that bigoted nonsense 45 years ago, just as they'll reject your bigoted tripe in the very near future.

Here's an example so you can understand the gender discrimination argument:

Bob, Carol and Alice are all unmarried and above the age of legal consent in regards to both sex and legal contracts, ie each one has the individual right to marry. Bob and Alice can marry, but Carol and Alice cannot marry simply because Carol is the "wrong" gender relative to Alice. Clearly such gender discrimination should be subject to heightened scrutiny. And as the courts have found there isn't even a rational basis for that gender discrimination - no more than there was for the racial discrimination of the anti-miscegenation laws.

Doubt SCOTUS will see it that way - especially since it would affect every other state that has constitutional provisions defining marriage to be between man and woman.

That's what SCOTUS does - overturn such unconstitutional laws and restrictions in state constitutions. That's precisely what they did 45 years ago when they struck down all the constitutional bans in all the confederate states.

Shrek - Lets take the Loving v. Virginia case. The real reason the "equal application" argument failed was that VA's law was just a masquerade for White Supremacy. It used "Racial Integrity" as the rational basis for its existence. That purpose in and of itself is racist, and contrary to the notion of the 14th Amendment where all men are created equal regardless of their racial genetics. I don't think the rational basis for Traditional Heterosexual Marriage (ie - children needing a Mom and Dad) would be considered contrary to the equality of women or the equality of the races.

The real reason the "equal application" argument failed was that VA's law was just a masquerade for White Supremacy. It used "Racial Integrity" as the rational basis for its existence.

And from where did you draw this "brilliant" conclusion? /s

I don't think the rational basis for Traditional Heterosexual Marriage (ie - children needing a Mom and Dad) would be considered contrary to the equality of women or the equality of the races.

You should have stopped at "I don't think..." because that would have been much more accurate. That argument was attempted in the Prop H8 case in California, and was also found to have no merit, largely due to the fact that the proponents of Prop H8 and their "expert" had no facts to support that argument, plus the fact that their "expert" had no expertise whatsoever in that area, so he was completely discredited -- as were all of their "arguments," especially considering that they presented virtually no supporting to evidence for their claims.

Kind of like what you're doing here.

David-2637217 - The real reason the "equal application" argument failed was that VA's law was just a masquerade for White Supremacy. It used "Racial Integrity" as the rational basis for its existence.

Ummmm........the court accepted Virginia's racial integrity argument at face value and still ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In other words the court in 1967 considered "racial integrity of progeny" to be a rational basis. However that wouldn't be the case today, neither from the concept of racial integrity or from the spurious link between marriage and progeny.

I don't think the rational basis for Traditional Heterosexual Marriage (ie - children needing a Mom and Dad) would be considered contrary to the equality of women or the equality of the races.

Children have a mom or dad regardless of marital status, so whatever point you think you're making is rather irrelevant. And since marriage isn't contingent upon the intent or ability to have have kids, it seems you have no point whatsoever. Unmarried folks have kids all the time, and no marriage is revoked due to lack of kids.

It's also interesting that you seek to financially and legally harm children whose parents are gay, by denying those parents and their kids the legal protections marriage provides. Why is that? What motivates your hatred of gays and their kids?

And how is your hatred of gays any different from the hate expressed by the racist Southern Baptists of Virginia against mixed-race couples and their mixed-race kids? It seems in both cases you bigots want to treat some Americans as 2nd-class citizens, apparently out of spite.

Shrekk (and ErinNJ) - You are certainly welcome to your arguments. And we can agree to disagree on topics of constitutional law. However - to brand me as a hater simply because I disagree with you is beyond the pale. I hold no animosity towards gay people. I do care about children. Too many have grown up in the midst of environments where there parents are separated or divorced. This causes A LOT of stress on kids. They don't get to have male and female parental role models, together and in a loving relationship. Childhood is very formative, and the greatest influence on their development is their parents. (Check with the APA on this one, I'm sure they would agree) The Govt should do all they can to increase the chances of healthy development, without taking away the rights of any gay parent. Civil heterosexual marriage is one step in that direction. ANother would be to make divorce a lot harder, maybe by requiring marriage counseling first.

It is the argument of the weak to call someone a "hater" simply becuase you disagree with them. Please refrain from judging people.

They don't get to have male and female parental role models, together and in a loving relationship.

Once again, the only part of this that has any supporting evidence is the need for more than one person in a parental role; gender is proven irrelevant to quality development.

You are certainly welcome to your arguments. And we can agree to disagree on topics of constitutional law.

Apparently, the courts disagree with you on those topics, too, since your "arguments" were considered of no merit in the various cases in which they were presented.

Your comparison of gay parenting to divorce and single parenting is comparing apples to oranges; in fact, there was testimony about that very subject during the Prop H8 trial:

Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

Perry v. Brown, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal., 2010)

Please refrain from judging people.

Practice what you preach, hater.

David-2637217 - However - to brand me as a hater simply because I disagree with you is beyond the pale. I hold no animosity towards gay people.

Right.....you don't hate gays, you just think they should be 2nd-class citizens who are denied the same rights you enjoy. You're so totally not a hater or a bigot.

I do care about children. Too many have grown up in the midst of environments where there parents are separated or divorced.

So your objection is to gays adopting or having children? That's a completely different topic from marriage, but the fact is that in all 50 states gays can adopt, and gays have children in a variety of other ways. Marriage is largely irrelevant to what you seem worried about.

It's just interesting that you seek to harm the children of gay couples by denying those families the legal and financial protections of marriage. Tell me again why you're not a hater?

Check with the APA on this one, I'm sure they would agree

The APA says that the children of gays and straights have similar outcomes, so it looks like you've swallowed a lot of bogus anti-gay nonsense. In fact you sound a lot worse than the racist Southern Baptists of Virginia 50 years ago - I don't think they had the intent to harm children like you do.

A quick google search shows the APA's, and Miuchael Lamb's conclusions are doubtful:

BTW - Never said gay people are 2nd class citizens. Are single people 2nd classs citizens? Am I trying to harm their children? No!

It is far from a closed case. My beliefs are rational. Yours are based on wishful thinking. Its simple:

1) To be a well adjusted human we must learn to interact well with both genders (undisputed)

2) Men and Women think/act differently (Scientifically proven)

3) The most influential people for children to learn from our their parents and by the role models they set.

4) If a child is only exposed to their parents primarily interacting with the same sex, the child will not learn as effectively on how to deal with the opposite sex of their gay/lesbian parents

Thats rational. Thats all that Rational Basis review requires. Is it non-sequitor? No! Does it matter that Dr. Lamb or the APA or the Court doesn't agree? No! You better hope SCOTUS thinks this is about gender being a component of a suspect class strict scrutiny analysis. Otherwise you will fail miserably.

Guess it won't let me post link to studies. Just google "gay parenting studies". Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus pops up

ROFLMAO! Mark Regnerus -- who has been debunked by every credible, unbiased research that is available? You really want to quote HIM?

Mark Regnerus’s “family structure” study has been a hot topic since it was released in June, namely because everysingleanti-gayconservativeorganization has cited it as evidence that same-sex couples are inferior parents. An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be “bull@!$%#” because Regnerus’s criteria was whether a kid’s parent ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of how long it lasted or what role in played in parenting...Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/?mobile=nc

Meanwhile, Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, called Regnerus' findings "bullsh*t," noting that the paper's loose definition of "lesbian mothers" and “gay fathers” should have “disqualified it immediately,” according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Added Wendy Simonds, a sociology professor at Georgia State University: "Regnerus’s 'data' on gay and lesbian parents are unrepresentative of gay and lesbian parents, and, in my view, are presented so as to advance a homophobic agenda.”

The American Medical Association and the President of the American Sociological Association have also put their names to documents which called Regnerus’ methodology scientifically unsound,according to The New Civil Rights Movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/mark-regnerus-gay-parenting-study-defense_n_2045960.html

Where are the APA's and Michael Lamb's research shown to be "doubtful"? Cite some proof, or STFU.

My beliefs are rational. Yours are based on wishful thinking.

I'm sure they are -- to bigots like you.

The Regnerus "study"? LOL.

Some people are really dumb and gullible. Even Regnerus himself admits that right-wing Christofascists have misrepresented it. And that "study" was so poorly done and so thoroughly discredited that it's ruined Regnerus' career.

4) If a child is only exposed to their parents primarily interacting with the same sex, the child will not learn as effectively on how to deal with the opposite sex of their gay/lesbian parents

Absolutely zero evidence supports this contention. In addition, the very premise you suppose is false for one reason: you don't need a gender figure to be a parent to play a developmental role.

I quick Google search also shows that there are PLENTY of respected sociologists who consider the Regnerus study to a scholarly effort - even though they might not personally agree with Regnerus' conclusions. Simply Google Search "a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy", you will find that more than 25 Sociologists agreed that Regnerus study was a quality study and contained a better representative sample than all previous studies. They, and others believe that the media's coverage of Regnerus has been irresponsible, and more of a witch hunt becuase the media folks writing these articles are politically motivated.

I quick Google search also shows that there are PLENTY of respected sociologists who consider the Regnerus study to a scholarly effort

Then maybe you should read Regnerus' own condemnation of his own study:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/?mobile=nc

REGNERUS: I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior.

DYFR.

Those so-called "respected sociologists" are only "respected" by groups like NARTH, Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, and other christo-bigoted anti-gay groups. You will find even more truly respected, unbiased sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other medical experts who have completely debunked and dismissed Regnerus's study, and with justification. Both his methodology and Regnerus himself came under scrutiny, because a) his methodology was flawed at best; and b) Regnerus is a known anti-gay Christian who has stated unequivocally that he cannot separate his Christianity from his work. That means he starts from a position of bias, which no credible researcher would do (and which is where you apparently come from, David). In addition, his study was funded by The Witherspoon Institute, which has connections to the National Organization for Marriage -- hardly an unbiased source.

That’s the study’s most obvious flaw: it doesn’t compare intact, two-parent gay families with similar two-parent straight families. On the contrary, the way Regnerus categorized the children of gay families ensures that they will be wildly incongruous with the straight families. Social scientists and science writers have picked apart other aspects of the study’s methodology, including its basing the categorizations of same-sex parents solely on respondents’ reports that their parent had a gay relationship of some kind and duration during their childhood. Some of the respondents fell into several categories, and to make his data workable, Regnerus had to put some respondents into the “gay father” or “lesbian mother” category when they could have fit into several of his other categories. In his words, he had to “force [categories’] mutual exclusivity for analytic purposes.” As Jim Burroway of the website Box Turtle Bulletin argues, that decision is understandable, but it suggests a weakness of data and ultimately undermines the stated goal of the study.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html

Quickly, it was noted that Regnerus had not actually surveyed young adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents between the 1970s and the 1990s, as he had alleged he aimed to do for his study. Regnerus essentially has admitted that those critical observations are accurate; but he has been inventing alibis for why he proceeded with his study, though he had not actually been able to survey young adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents.

What Regnerus did, was to disingenuously cherry-pick his control groups to seek to justify, unscientifically, his prejudices against gay and lesbian parents. Regnerus worked with an invalid sample. Such practices seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research. The complaint filed against Regnerus does not regard ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith personal or professional opinions, or private moral or ethical behavior. In the matter of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry into the behavior of Mark Regnerus, the University of Texas, Austin’s honor and reputation could be at the stake.

The sum and substance of Regnerus’s alibis are 1) that he used the best available population survey method to survey a tiny population, and that; 2) because he did not survey an adequate number of young adult children raised by gay parents, but; 3) wanted to carry out a study on such persons anyway, he; 4) decided to make stuff up about gay parents and children, and hope for the best for himself.

Regnerus’s claims that he used the best available population sampling method for his study are false. One of the most troubling factors of his willingness to make stuff up about gay parents, and hope for the best for himself, is that, those portions of his study funding, so far to be revealed to the public came from The Witherspoon Institute, where Robert P. George, mastermind of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a Senior Fellow, and The Bradley Foundation, where Robert George is a Board member. Robert George and NOM are notorious for making stuff up about — and that is to say — telling negative lies about — gay people.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/mark-regnerus-and-noms-anti-gay-rights-expert-witness-project/politics/2012/07/02/42580

That you continue to defend Regnerus and his biased, made-up "study" speaks volumes about you, David; you have lost what tiny bit of credibility you may have had. It also demonstrates that YOU are the one who is irresponsible.

EPIC FAIL.

EPIC FAIL.

Seriously. This is why I continue to tell people to DYFR...also known as "do your @!$%#ing research".

Apparently, allswell, David is only doing "research" from sources that confirm his bigotry and ignorance.

I suspect that like the other boutique "research" funded by the NARTH and NOM hate groups, the Regenerus study will continue to be cited by ignorant Christofascists in the same way that Paul Cameron's "research" continues to be cited........decades after it's been thoroughly debunked.

People like David are just too ignorant and bigoted to know better.

You don't get it ErinNJ and shrekk. I'm not trying to convince you that Regnerus's research is correct. I don't even know if it is myself. But I bring it to light simply to state this notion - "It is NOT a matter of scientific certainty that children statistically do as well growing up wiith two gay/lesbian parents as they do with two heterosexual parents" If a sociologist with a PhD can show a study to the contrary, and get 25 or so other sociologists with PhD's to agree that his study was not bogus, or non-sequitor, or rigged - then that means there is not nearly enough evidence to throw away the part 4 of the Rational Basis for Civil Heterosexual Marriage. Again - its not enough that the Court, or the APA, or Dr. Lamb to disagree with the findings. Vast deference in Rational Basis scrutiny is given to the legislative body (in this case - the people of CA). All that is required is that the argument is logical. You would have to prove that my Point 4 was scientifically proven to be false beyond reasonable doubt. That is not nearly the case.

then that means there is not nearly enough evidence to throw away the part 4 of the Rational Basis for Civil Heterosexual Marriage

See, there's your problem...numerous studies have been done on the subject with hundreds of supporting sociologists. You just haven't done the research.

David-2637217 - But I bring it to light simply to state this notion - "It is NOT a matter of scientific certainty that children statistically do as well growing up wiith two gay/lesbian parents as they do with two heterosexual parents" If a sociologist with a PhD can show a study to the contrary, and get 25 or so other sociologists with PhD's to agree that his study was not bogus, or non-sequitor, or rigged - then that means there is not nearly enough evidence to throw away the part 4 of the Rational Basis for Civil Heterosexual Marriage.

Nonsense. The only "study" you've been able to cite doesn't even support the claim you're trying to make, and it's not considered remotely credible by the scientific community due to its poor methodology - Regenerus barely survived an academic fraud investigation, and the conclusion was essentially that Regenerus was too incompetent to have committed fraud.

And all the rest of the academic research in this area directly contradicts your bigoted nonsense.

This issue has been tested in court from California to Florida, and none of the sort of claims you're making have been found credible. In fact they've usually been found to be completely bogus and without any scientific merit whatsoever, with the Christofascist "researchers" being laughed out of the courtroom (literally). Here's what happened in one very recent case in Florida:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/us/23adopt.html

Judge Cope wrote that at the trial, the state presented only two expert witnesses, one of whom undercut the state's case by disagreeing with the idea of a blanket ban on gay adoption, stating instead that adoptions should be considered case by case. The other expert called by the state, Dr. George A. Rekers, was criticized by opposing experts as having provided research that was rife with "errors in scientific methodology and reporting" and that "did not meet established standards in the field."

The court did not comment on the fact that Dr. Rekers, who was paid $120,000 for his work in the case, has since been enmeshed in a scandal after he was discovered to have taken a 10-day trip to Europe with a young man who advertised sexual services on a site for gay escorts.

------

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/florida-ag-bill-mccollum-paid-george-rentboy-rekers-87000-to-be-star-witness-for-states-adoption-ban.html

"As a paid witness (in the case against Gill), Rekers relies on long-discredited research to justify banning gay people from adopted and dismisses numerous studies suggesting that children of gay parents are no worse off than those of straight parents, testifying that he opposes gay parenting even if it flies in the face of scientific research. In court, Rekers said that he favored removing children from any gay home in favor of a straight home, even if the child had been there 10 years. In an article from 2005, Reker compares allowing gay people seeking to adopt to terrorists and drug dealers: 'This is not basically different from denying placement in other households with structures that are not in the best interests of children. Fifteen-year-old couples, 90-year-old couples, Thai-language-only speaking couples, blind and deaf parents, households with a pedophilic-behaving adult, households with practicing criminals, households with drug dealers and drug abusers, households with unemployed adults, households that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, households with an active terrorist, households with sexually promiscuous unmarried men and women co-habitating and households with homosexually behaving adults all have either inherent instability or inherent disadvantage, stress, and potential harm to placed children.'"

Seriously David, you're only making yourself look like a complete idiot by supporting discredited crap like that.

allswell - Never said I was for a ban on gay adoption. There are PLENTY of kids who need a home, who are sitting in foster homes and orphanages. I would consider it on a case-by-case basis. Certainly if they had been with a gay couple for 10 years I wouldn't being pulling them out. I guess if we had three parties looking to adopt the same child (with no other factors) where there was 1) A good heterosexual couple; 2) A good gay/lesbian couple; and 3) A single person; I indeed would give preference to #1, then #2, and then #3. Its not that any of the parties wouldnt be better than foster care or an orphanage.

allswell - Never said I was for a ban on gay adoption.

Where is homosexual adoption mentioned by me?

I'm sorry allswell - misread Shrekks quotes regarding gay adoption cases as yours. I apologize.

I'm sorry allswell - misread Shrekks quotes regarding gay adoption cases as yours. I apologize.

No worries. I was just confused.

I didn't see Pigotry said anything dumb. Can you be more specific if you must rudely call names?

Just ignore itsnotatax. He's still bitter because his Magic Underwear Mormon Cultist didn't win.

Those that want so desparately to 'protect marriage' should consider banning divorce.

John

We should....but there are always enough stupid people out there to waste our time.

Apparently there are a lot of idiots that think if same-sex marriages are officially legal, that they'll be forced to marry someone of the same sex? At least that's the only reason why I think someone would oppose it.....

JohnJohn - Completely agree. Any kind of love is better than no love at all. I have never heard a valid answer to the question - How does gay marriage hurt you? We usually get some lame quote from the bible or some family values garbage but never anything valid. I have two friends who have been together for 27 years. Their sexuality is no more of an overriding issue in their relationship than any other couple who have been together for 27 years. They love each other, share a home and the love of pets, gardening and cooking which is why we are friends.

Even your God, the President said that marriage was between a man and a woman until he evolved. I mean until he decided he needed the gay vote.

dogs80 - Even your God, the President said that marriage was between a man and a woman until he evolved.

Actually Obama came out in full support of marriage equality in 1996, but some clueless bigots were too dumb to notice.

the President said that marriage was between a man and a woman until he evolved.

And some day, you'll pull your head out and evolve, too. But, we won't hold our breath.

Don't we have better things to do in this country than fighting love?

We sure do. Just let it be legal. Those of us who are gay, bisexual, whatever, mean no harm... We're not going to destroy this country, we're not going to corrupt your children, we're not going to try and "turn you gay" (which isn't possible), and, the majority of us, if we were to marry, will not shove it in your faces.

Being gay/bisexual is a fact of life for us... something we cannot change (Trust me, I've tried). Just treat us equally, and we'll shut up... I promise! :)

Well, that's my rant for the night.

In respose to Dogs80 "Even your God, the President said that marriage was between a man and a woman until he evolved. I mean until he decided he needed the gay vote."

You are totally wrong, anyone with more that three brain cells knows Obama had tghe gay vote already. Log cabin republicans are a total sham of mainly well-to-do gays that think republican's favortism toward rich people benifits them.

Gee - Bible Belt standing for morals - what a concept!!

Only the morals that are convenient for them !

parkwaync, morality is subjective. You can not legislate it.

Bible Belt standing for morals - what a concept!!

Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. For example, I think denying people their equal rights, including the right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing, is "immoral."

as a matter of fact the bible is BIG on personal choice of each individual in all matters...it would seem that denying personal choice to others would be equilivent to a sin...

ie "judge not lest you be judged"?

parkwaync: Gee - Bible Belt standing for morals - what a concept!!

What morals -- hatred? discrimination? superiority? self-importance? hypocrisy?

Nobody's impressed!

Well said Vermont!

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is known more for what they are against than what they are for:

- against marriage equality

- against women's right to choose

- against universal health care

- against freedom of speech (if they don't like the message)

- against unions

- against science

- against taxes

Indeed, here is the relevant portion of our Constitution that I hope a majority of the Justices will understand:

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.....

Section 2 - State citizens...

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

To sum up class, a legal marriage of a couple in one state must be recognized in all the other states. Pretty simple. Time for the religious extremists to find another boogyman to fight. Their fight against there being too much love in the world is an epic fail.

Do the straight justices recuse themselves from non-gay issues? That argument doesn't hold water as gay justices will follow the law/constitution as well as their straight counterparts.

There is no law that says the gay judges must recuse themselves.

Justme-123 - To sum up class, a legal marriage of a couple in one state must be recognized in all the other states.

Unfortunately that's not true since there's a "public policy exception" to Full Faith & Credit.

Otherwise the Loving v Virginia ruling wouldn't have been necessary for mixed-race marriage to be recognized in the south.

skrekk, indeed, to be honest I was not as familiar with that exception as I should have been. The Loving case was also interesting, as is the Court's calling marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man." Now, since we do not require that heterosexual couples be both fertile and intent on producing children in order to marry, the argument made by many that gays should not be allowed to marry because they cannot have children becomes pointless and discriminatory. Therefore, based on Loving and the 14th Amendment, they must be allowed to marry.

The really big thing that the Loving case did was to strip the bigoted mask from states which claim that discrimination against a class is actually equal treatment. It makes no more sense to say that everyone has the same right to marry someone of the same race as themselves than to say that everyone has the same right to marry someone of a different gender as themselves.

That bigoted nonsense no longer passes the smell test.

I agree DOMA is unconstitutional, if you cannot marry in Mississippi for example without your parental permission becasue you are not yet 18 but you jump over the bridge to Alabama where you only need to be 17, and you get married there, when you get home to MS you are married whether the state or Mommy and Daddy like it or not. Been that way for centuries. DOMA was only passed to make it so the feds don't have to extend pension and benefits to same sex spouses.

Marriage was a concept that comes from religion...not just the Bible, but all religions. Marriage (in most religions) is a union of one man and one woman to form a family unit. Definition of marriage has changed in dictionaries, but was of religious origin. Why not maintain the original definition and keep marriage holy and gays can have civil unions?

Marriage predates organized religion. Most marriages were not performed by any religious clerics until about 1100 A.C.E. The Catholic church didn't get involved in marriage until the issue of married priests giving away property the church thought was theirs became an issue.

Marriage was a concept that comes from religion...not just the Bible, but all religions

Wrong! Marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years. Your religion or any religion does not own marriage, especially in this country. And marriage is a civil institution under the perview of the law. Religion is irrelevant to marriage and not legally binding without a state issued marriage license!

Marriage (in most religions) is a union of one man and one woman to form a family unit.

A moot point, since religion is not required for a marriage!

Why not maintain the original definition and keep marriage holy and gays can have civil unions?

Because civil unions is not marriage and is unconstitutional!

Kumar-889209: Marriage was a concept that comes from religion...not just the Bible, but all religions

Wrong. Marriage was originally done for the sake of PROPERTY and PROPERTY RIGHTS. Put that goddam BuyBull down and read some REAL HISTORY for a change.

If you want some concepts that started with religion, try witch-hunts, bigamy, misogyny...

And here's the kicker for you: ATHEISTS can LEGALLY WED in the US. ALSO: nobody is required to involve religion or any cult god (including YOUR cult god) in their marriage. Millions of marriages are legally performed in the US each year by ship captains, judges, and many others (even Elvis Impersonators) without One Shred of Cultism or god-uttering involved.

ALL OF YOUR POINTS, pained1, are NOT RELEVANT!!

Why not maintain the original definition and keep marriage holy and gays can have civil unions?

Those who want to get married in a church can have "holy matrimony", while everyone else has "marriage." The problem is already solved.

Marriage (in the eyes of the state) is a civil contract between two parties, which gives them certain mutual privileges and obligations regarding property, custody of children, inheritance, medical care, and some others.

There is no valid government interest to restrict this kind of contract to two persons of opposite sex.

Since it's a civil contract, it requires that the parties have a legal capacity to enter such contract.

As of present, there is a complete legal framework for entering into marriage by two persons, and for dissolution of marriage of two persons.

There is no legal framework, and possibly it may not exist, for expanding a marriage (between parties of equal rights) for multiple persons, and for exiting a multiple marriage.

Bill - I have no problem with polygamy. I do not think that legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy as they are completely separate issues.

Bill,

If two straight people can marry, than why can't you marry 13 different wives???

Bill - Where will it all stop! OMG!

Bill H-1430012: It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered to be as heinous a practice as pedophilia and incest. It is still stunning to me that such a deeply held belief by society could be could be changed, but there is no denying, it has changed.

Correct. It wasn't that long ago that anyone who was NON WHITE was consider a POS low-life. That has changed, too. Also because that prior thought was the WRONG thought. Things evolve, bill, try it out!

If 2 people of the same sex can marry, then why can't 3 people marry. Why can't a woman have several husbands, and a wife too.

Each of your slippery slope arguments is a different set of circumstances with completely different Legal Findings of Fact. If you support bigamy, or think it deserves its day in court, then FIGHT FOR IT. Man-up and own it -- don't just yap about it because it somehow supports your own bigotry toward gays. Then, it's just a coward's cop-out!

If 2 people of the same sex can marry, then why can't 3 people marry. Why can't a woman have several husbands, and a wife too. Where will it stop...or should it stop. I don't know.

You're forgetting the legal argument for marriage equality ... equal protection. That is, gays are being denied something available to heterosexuals. However, since NO ONE is permitted to have multiple legal spouses, there's no equal protection argument to justify the practice. That's why there is no slippery slope here.

Bill H,

You are correct that someday, marriage may be expanded to multiple wives/husbands. However, that is not the question before the SCOTUS today. Today is only same-sex marriages and that is the ONLY point that would be discussed and considered in their deliberations.

Should the question of multiple spouses ever come before the Supreme Court, then and only then will they hear arguments for and against.

"What Goes Around, Comes Around"

All the "Evils" we read about throughout history become acceptable then, they aren't acceptable and on and on and on......

We will have polygamy again, we will have slavery again.....There will be another holocaust......All these things shall come to pass......There is nothing new under the sun.....Horrors will come upon mankind that we can't even possibly imagine!

Prophecy is so easy. Just look at what has happened and you will know what will happen.

I just like to sit back and watch!

Malcontented-3522106 - All the "Evils" we read about throughout history become acceptable then, they aren't acceptable and on and on and on......

Because treating all Americans equally under the law is "evil"?

You religious nutballs are funny.

Sorry, Hoss, "Evils" was quoted for a reason. Evil is a personal preference. What's evil to me might not be evil to you.

I'm just saying that at one time homosexuality was "evil". But now it isn't, to most. People have a tendency to want what they can't have. At some point, things that are "evil" now will be acceptable. Maybe we will legalize public porn or legalize marriage for minors. Who knows? But there will always be something for people to argue over.

And I ain't no religious nutball. Thank You Very Much. But I'm glad you got a laugh.

When the dog can give consent, your neighbor can marry him.

wow. since when can animals legally consent to a contract or agreement?

this is your argument, cunical? really??

Why is it that those who oppose same-sex marriage are always the ones promoting bestiality? Cunical, do you want to marry and have sex with a dog?

What happens if the Supremes rule that same sex marriage is a crime unless one of the partners proves that they can have a baby fathered by the other like all animals on earth!

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage or vice versa.

rober34: What happens if the Supremes rule that same sex marriage is a crime unless one of the partners proves that they can have a baby fathered by the other like all animals on earth!

Having children has never been a requirement of any marriage in the US.

So, to further your own question -- what of the millions of heterosexual couples who RIGHT NOW cannot conceive, for medical reasons, for reasons of biological incompatibility, for reasons of being infertile, or having had a hysterectomy, or cancer of the ovaries/testes and having them removed, or the many elderly couples who cannot conceive, or the many elderly couples who get married for the sake of love and companionship (like my dad did after my mom died of cancer), but they clearly cannot procreate in the 70's...and on and on and on... Are you suggesting the Supremes will banish them, or annul their marriages?

Honestly, people, where do some of you come up with these WHACKADOO ideas?

What happens if the Supremes rule that same sex marriage is a crime unless one of the partners proves that they can have a baby fathered by the other like all animals on earth!

That's not the question that they will be deciding.

The court already decided - hold on to your skivvies! - that homosexual sex is not a crime in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

The two main cases the Supremes might take up are: whether a state may ban same-sex marriage based on a simple majority vote - the California Prop 8 case; and whether marriages performed in one state are required to be recognized in other states - the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA).

They could, of course, conclude in either decision that banning same-sex marriage itself is unconstitutional for the entire U.S., but few people expect that outcome. There is not really an opportunity to reverse Lawrence v. Texas.

DCogito - and whether marriages performed in one state are required to be recognized in other states - the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA).

Just a minor correction - you're referring to section 2 of DOMA but that's not the issue at stake here. The only issue is section 3, which concerns the federal non-recognition of lawfully granted same-sex marriages.

Section 2 of DOMA is irrelevant and meaningless since it simply restated the status quo. No state has ever been required to recognize an out of state marriage which violates its own statutes.

What happens if the Supremes rule that same sex marriage is a crime unless one of the partners proves that they can have a baby fathered by the other like all animals on earth.

Why would they decide that since there's no such requirement of heterosexual couples? Do you even think before you type?

I didn't realize Gladys Knights backup singers were deciding gay marriage.. I could have sworn it was the supreme court justices and not the supremes..

Jim, you're thinking of Diana Ross; Gladys Knight had the Pips.... LOL

Although either/both are probably smarter than than gay-bashers and religionists posting this trash...

Actually it was President John Adams in 1797 who signed the Treaty of Tripoli, but you were very close.

Nope, Whoopie isn't running and she's not gay.

In year 1960, people were saying: "A Catholic President? That's impossible. That should NOT happen."

the hell you say !!!!

Why not???

http://xkcd.com/1122/

Relevant!

Feel free to move somewhere where marriage will always be between a man and a woman. Like Iran. Or Vatican City.

Lonesome, Uganda seems right up your alley, as they are considering increasing their criminal penalties for gay sex to include execution. You'll definitely want to avoid Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and several other countries that already understand that just as straights are born that way, so too are gays, and their marriages must be recognized. Sorry you're having so much trouble adjusting to the modern world.

A man cannot marry a man.

Yes, they can, in several countries and even a few U.S. states.

Starting on Thursday they can get the license in Washington state & the weddings can begin on Sunday. I've already gotten 2 invitations!

Lonesome Rhoades-2738573: It's disgusting that there is even a conversation about this. A man cannot marry a man.

Sure he can -- he can now, in a growing number of states in the United States, and in a growing number of countries all around the world.

Where have you been?

Lonesome Rhoades is just pissed because no man asks HIM to get married.

lol, you don't know anything about our country and the constitution, do you? Its called "freedom", you should check into it someday!

clue for the clueless: no one is "imposing" anything on you. You are free to marry whoever you wanted. Good lord, some of you people are so dull, its almost scary for the future of our country. You are free to obey whatever morality you want to..but in america, land of the free, your freedom ends at yourself.

well, the president has nothing to do with the lawsuits, and the election is over, and this issue isn't actually a big vote getter anyway, and scotus isn't going to push something off to wait for new judges.

but other than that, your post was correct. :)

Maybe Vermon. You could be right, I could be right, but it is not a Presidential thing I think we can agree on that.

This is because the relativists seek to replace our cultures solid foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics with the rhetoric of the homosexual which are words that signify nothing.

Except our foundation is NOT judeo-christian! I defy you to prove otherwise!

The homosexual seeks to relativize and thus replace the centrality of the familial conjugal act with an empty act of mutual masturbation which cannot lead to life.

As I've said before, reproduction is not a requirement for marriage! Nor is masturbation wrong or illegal. By that token, are you also opposed to heterosexuals masturbating, as that doesn't "lead to life?? Do you masturbate for that matter?

There is no context in which the empty act of homosexual sex can be considered a consummation of marriage.

Sex has nothing to do with marriage! Marriage is simply a civil contract under the law. What people choose to do in the marriage is their own business, consumation or otherwise! But the validity of a marriage is not determined by sex or procreation!

I don't post much so I don't know the format but I will try and reply to your comments Gordy.

1) (Plymouth_Colony)

2) Mutual masturbation (of which all acts of sodomy fundamentally are) is not on the same level as procreative sex. Reproductive sex is so obviously a much more successful envronmental response versus masturbation that I don't think it need be argued. Marriage from a cultural perspective is quite varied, but children have always been a primary element.

3) The non-consumation of a marriage is still a valid reason for divorce in every state. How does one consummate a homosexual relationship?

1) (Plymouth_Colony)

A colony only. Not a nation, and predates the Constitution!

Mutual masturbation (of which all acts of sodomy fundamentally are) is not on the same level as procreative sex.

That's a matter of individual preference and opinion.

Reproductive sex is so obviously a much more successful envronmental response versus masturbation that I don't think it need be argued.

See my previous statement.

, but children have always been a primary element.

Children, or the intent to have children, has never been a requirement for marriage, or vice versa!

The non-consumation of a marriage is still a valid reason for divorce in every state.

That's up to the individuals involved in the marriage itself. A marriage does not automatically become invalidated if it's not consumated, nor is proof of consumation required.

How does one consummate a homosexual relationship?

Quite similar to the way heterosexuals consumate.

1. Plymouth Colony was not the first settlement in this country; Jamestown, Virginia, was (13 years earlier). Study some US history. Furthermore, the Mayflower Compact had nothing to do with the Constitution; the Compact was merely a social contract in which everyone agreed to abide by certain laws in exchange for shared protection. It influenced the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution, but was not a basis for the Constitution.
2. No state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, which is why the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children are allowed to marry. But please, do try to explain to us how procreation is relevant to marriage -- I'd like to see you try.
3. WRONG. Very few states actually require marriages to be consummated; in most states, a couple is considered legally married when the ceremony ends.

Perhaps if you actually did some research before you posted, you would seem less foolish -- but I doubt it.

Anaxagoras also seems unaware that in the Plymouth colony all marriages were strictly civil legal contracts, and not a religious issue. The marriage ceremony couldn't even be performed in a church.

Erin did you even read my first post and Gordy's response? I'm not sure what you are responding to and you seem very angry and pretentious which does not reflect well for as scholarly a person as you seem to be. Anyway I will try and respond to your condescending straw man post.

1) Gordy said the US was not founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. I disagreed and I still do. I did not claim that Plymoth Rock was the first settlement etc. or even anything about the US Constitution just simply who our founders were and what motivated them. You should try and stick to the argument instead of making a straw man type rebuttal.

2) Both you and Gordy ignored my second point in that homosexual rhetoric does indeed try to relativize sexuality and neither one of you denied that. But procreative sex is on a higher plane than mutual masturbation and Darwin would agree. You are right that procreation is not relevant to marriage but you forget that marriage is extremely relevant to procreation. Mutual masterbation (lifeless sex acts) do not require marriage.

3) Again you straw manned me. I said non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for divorce and it is!this rebuts Gordy's argument that marriage has nothing to do with sex.

I disagreed and I still do.

And you're still wrong!

just simply who our founders were and what motivated them

Now you're backpedaling and speculating. You specificly referred to the Plymouth Colony as the basis of our nation, which is incorrect. Our nation is founded on the Constitution, drafted by the Founding Fathers. They were motiviated by their experiences with British tyranny and a desire for liberty. they were not inspired by any judeo-christian values, nor are any in the Constitution itself! This is substantiated with original, primary sources from the Founding Fathers themselves. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise!

Both you and Gordy ignored my second point in that homosexual rhetoric does indeed try to relativize sexuality and neither one of you denied that.

You didn't make much of a point to begin with. You just made mere conjecture at best and baseless accusations at worst.

But procreative sex is on a higher plane than mutual masturbation and Darwin would agree.

And again you generalize and speak your own opinion. But do not try to speak for others. And procreation is irrelevant to marriage. You ignore that fact!

but you forget that marriage is extremely relevant to procreation.

No, it's not! Procreation is not a requirement for marriage or vice versa.

I said non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for divorce

There are many different things that can be grounds for divorse. It's all up to the individual's involved and their own reasons.

this rebuts Gordy's argument that marriage has nothing to do with sex.

No it doesn't. You presume a couple that doesn't have sex will lead to divorce. That is not necessarily the case. Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. How the participants in that contract conduct themselves is between themselves. You can have sex in marriage. You can also have sex outside of marriage. Sex and marriage are not synonymous!

Again you straw manned me.

No. Erin addressed your posts and made valid points!

1. The US was not founded on any Judeo-Christian ethic, as Gordy has pointed out. You can disagree, but it does not change that fact. YOU mentioned Plymouth as a "motivation" for the Founding Fathers, when it was nothing of the sort. Perhaps YOU should practice what you preach and try sticking to the argument, because Plymouth was NOT the foundation of the US in any way, shape, or form -- and again, YOU brought it up.
2. "But procreative sex is on a higher plane than mutual masturbation and Darwin would agree." WRONG again. Sex is not simply for procreation; it fulfills physical needs for every animal, humans included. Furthermore, what Darwin has to say about whether procreative sex is on a "higher plane" than non-procreative sex is irrelevant. As far as your "...you forget that marriage is extremely relevant to procreation" bull@!$%#, you still have not shown how the two are in any way related. Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation, and vice versa; neither is required in order for the other to occur, either legally or biologically. "Mutual masterbation (lifeless sex acts) do not require marriage" -- and neither does procreative sex in this country, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.
3. "I said non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for divorce and it is" -- STILL WRONG. In fact, you said: "The non-consumation of a marriage is still a valid reason for divorce in every state," which is WRONG. And now YOU are "straw-manning," by attempting to move the goalposts in the middle of the game. As I said, very few states require consummation for validation of a marriage; the majority of US states regard a couple as legally married as soon as the ceremony has been completed.

What makes me angry are fools like you who try to portray yourselves as presenting educated arguments, when the truth is that neither you nor your arguments are educated in the least. If you consider my post "pretentious," that's your problem -- but I suspect that you find it so because it so thoroughly debunked the bull@!$%# presented in your pathetic attempts to find any logical reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

Wow Gordy are you serious?

What part of our CULTURES solid foundation of a Judeo-Christian ethic do you keep not seeing? You keep bringing up the Constitution and I'm not sure why but I'd be willing to say there's a 1000 year's of Judeo-Christian ethic behind that too. There you go, now you can argue that.

So are you saying that natural selection has nothing to do with sexuality? That masturbation and sexual intercourse are equal in reproductive value? Did I say relevant or requirement in regards to procreation and marriage or did you just puts words in my mouth?

You said sex has nothing to do with marriage. That's a pretty blanket statement that you made. If you're looking for backpeddling you ought to read the last paragraph in your last post.

I'll be honest I can see legitimate reasons for trivilaizing marriage even more so than it already is in the West but not with the arguments that you or Erin present.

You didn't debunk anything Erin you just frothed at the mouth. You ignore science, you ignore history and you ignore manners. You are why so many people are so clannish and close-minded. You can't even type with decorum.

You keep bringing up the Constitution and I'm not sure why

Because the Constitution IS the foundation of this nation!

but I'd be willing to say there's a 1000 year's of Judeo-Christian ethic behind that too.

That would be a losing bet!

There you go, now you can argue that.

John Adams, in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," (emphasis mine)

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Oh, but this is no mere mention, no random thought; he goes on:

As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance.

And he continues to emphasize his point:

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

Here, John Adams is speaking clearly and specifically to the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution was written, which does not include any religious ideology or fealty to any particular religion, much less any statement that this is a "christian nation" or that we were founded under "christian principles."

There, I just argued it and you just lost your bet!

So are you saying that natural selection has nothing to do with sexuality?

You like to keep moving the goalpost, don't you? I never brought up natural selection. The issue is marriage. Try to stay on topic!

That masturbation and sexual intercourse are equal in reproductive value?

Again, a Strawman. Reproduction has nothing to do with marriage! And the "value" of sex vs masturbation is up to the individual.

Did I say relevant or requirement in regards to procreation and marriage or did you just puts words in my mouth?

You haven't said anything relevant yet!

That's a pretty blanket statement that you made.

It's also pretty accurate! Is sex/procreation a requirement for marriage, or vice versa? Yes or no?

If you're looking for backpeddling you ought to read the last paragraph in your last post.

My statement stands!

I'll be honest I can see legitimate reasons for trivilaizing marriage even more so than it already is in the West but not with the arguments that you or Erin present.

And how will gay marriage possibly trivialize it? No one's marriage, or the validity of anyone's marriage, is possibly affected by gay marriage!

Moral relativism in the West will lead to the disintegration of the state. This is because the relativists seek to replace our CULTURES solid foundation of Judeo-Christian ETHICS with the RHETORIC of the homosexual which are words that signify nothing. The homosexual seeks to relativize and thus replace the centrality of the familial conjugal act with an empty act of mutual masturbation which cannot lead to life. There is no context in which the empty act of homosexual sex can be considered a CONSUMMATION of marriage.

I had to go back and read my first post that you keep talking around Gordy. I capitalized the words I used that I did not think you addressed well. Though principles and ethics are pretty close, and you said that consummation is not a necessary act but agreed ( I think ) that it is grounds for annullment/divorce/no-fault etc.

I still do not see you addressing the cultural part. Would you mind saying a bit about that?

ps Gordy I never said bet in my post. It is things like that, where you make things up that I didn't say, that prompt me to think you are cut and pasting responses.

Anaxagoras - Moral relativism in the West will lead to the disintegration of the state. This is because the relativists seek to replace our CULTURES solid foundation of Judeo-Christian ETHICS with the RHETORIC of the homosexual which are words that signify nothing.

Actually what's happening is that the silly sharia laws of your bizarre cult are no longer being enforced by the state.

That's a very good thing and a sign of significant social progress. More and more today all Americans are being treated as the equal citizens they truly are rather than the 2nd-class citizens bigots like you would prefer some to be. The same thing happened 45 years ago when the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, and the racist Southern Baptist sharia laws were no longer enforced by the state.

And just an FYI......not all Christians are homophobic like you. There are lots of gay-friendly churches and synagogues and many gay-friendly denominations. While that doesn't matter in the context of a secular legal contract like marriage, it does undermine your notion of what "Judeo-Christian culture" is. In other words your ignorant bigotry isn't reflective of "Judeo-Christian culture" on the whole, just your tiny corner of it.

The homosexual seeks to relativize and thus replace the centrality of the familial conjugal act with an empty act of mutual masturbation which cannot lead to life. There is no context in which the empty act of homosexual sex can be considered a CONSUMMATION of marriage.

You must be an Opus Dei Catholic since consummation is a Catholic religious concept, not a legal concept. No state requires any sex act for a marriage to be valid, they only require that the parties gave legal consent and have paid the license fee. The state simply doesn't give a crap about your sex life, nor does it inquire about your ability or intent to have sex. And unlike you the vast majority of Catholics support marriage equality.

Skrekk thank you for your repsonse,

I'm sorry you are so angry. You said, "Actually what's happening is that the silly sharia laws of your bizarre cult are no longer being enforced by the state."

Does this mean that these laws were once enforced by the state? If so does that mean that it was part of US culture and ethics?

Moral relativism in the West will lead to the disintegration of the state.

Who are you to say what is morally relevant? Morality is subjective and you simply speculate again.

This is because the relativists seek to replace our CULTURES solid foundation of Judeo-Christian ETHICS with the RHETORIC of the homosexual which are words that signify nothing.

Another baseless conjecture and flat out lie, as it's been deomonstrated to you that our culture and country is NOT based on judeo-christian "Ethics." Or is that just more of YOUR rhetoric?

The homosexual seeks to relativize and thus replace the centrality of the familial conjugal act with an empty act of mutual masturbation which cannot lead to life.

You still haven't demonstrated, much less proven, how! You're just talking!

There is no context in which the empty act of homosexual sex can be considered a CONSUMMATION of marriage.

Not by YOU. Who are you to say how another feels?

I capitalized the words I used that I did not think you addressed

I addressed them. You apparently missed them!

( I think ) that it is grounds for annullment/divorce/no-fault etc.

Again, that's one of MANY different reasons for possibly ending a marriage and completely up to the INDIVIDUALS involved in the marriage!

I still do not see you addressing the cultural part. Would you mind saying a bit about that?

You didn't specify exactly which aspects of "Judeo-Christian" cultures you're talking about. That's a pretty broad term! But I did address how it applies to the Foundation of this coutry, in other words, it doesn't!

Anaxagoras - Does this mean that these laws were once enforced by the state?

Yes it does. It also means that the states were once theocracies which enforced various sharia laws in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. For example until 2003 Texas had a sharia law against consensual sex between gays, when it was overturned by SCOTUS.

If so does that mean that it was part of US culture and ethics?

What is says is that while our federal government has always been nominally secular, until the 14th Amendment was passed the states were allowed to be theocracies which could enforce the silly sharia laws of your favorite cult (or even a cult you don't agree with). That's because the 1st Amendment and Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states prior to 1868. It's taken over 100 years for the implications of the 14th Amendment to be fully incorporated to the states, and so there are still some sharia laws remaining at the state level (blue laws, mini-DOMAs) and federal level (DOMA, and until recently DADT).

It sounds like you must have skipped basic high school civics, went to a parochial school where you weren't taught about the history and structure of our government, or perhaps are a product of the Texas edukashunal system. You might want to learn about the Establishment Clause, the 14 Amendment, the Incorporation Doctrine, and the Lemon Test to learn why the state can no longer enforce the silly sharia laws of your cult.

There is no context in which the empty act of homosexual sex can be considered a CONSUMMATION of marriage.

Incorrect.

To consummate:

to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse

Sexual intercourse:

2: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

FAIL.

Waaaaaaa...... LOL cons.

@Paduki, sounds like you are crying. I always disagree with the political correct, and most of those rectums belong to the GOP. Go figure that one out. While both parties have good and bad ideas, and do deserve merit, I haven't seen, lately, any from the GOP that has any value. Kinda of like used toilet paper, no one wants it.

Get a clue, it's not your way or the highway that you are used to. We are now in the 21st century, hurry and join up, it's fun. No one wants to go back like you tea baggers want to. Then we would all have to do all of this all over again.

You shouldn't use the term teabagger, its a homosexual slur.

Sounds like Sheila is a teabagger.

Sheila-846240: You shouldn't use the term teabagger, its a homosexual slur.

No, it really isn't. It refers to the act of squatting above someone's face and letting the bag/sac into the mouth of that person. The gender of the person below is irrelevent -- it can be male or female! STop the lies, Sheila! You should know better!!