Equality under the law.

...it's in the constitution.

.

We are all GAY - happy, that is. Thanks, the Supreme COurt.

I agree Travis. I have so many friends that are gay and are married, and I think the federal level needs to realize and accept the fact that their marriages should be recognized. DOMA needs to GO!

Good. Same sex marriage will soon be the law of the land. Welcome to the 21st century America!

@bloggit, What part of two consenting adults do you not understand?! The slippery-slope argument is one of nonsense and complete lack of understanding.

What about cupcakes? Who doesn't love cupcakes?

bloggit, I'd be willing to bet those were the exact same questions folks like you asked when The Supreme Court ruled that prohibition of interracial marriages was unconstitutional in 1967.

Relax, it'll all be OK.

And bloggit, I went ahead and asked my sister. She doesn't want to marry you so its a moot point.

Why IS polygamy illegal? If it is consensual then what is the problem? Same with same-sex marriages. I don't see how anyone can construe that banning gay marriage is constitutional. Even the more conservative judges on the bench won't be able to come up with a dissenting opinion on that one. Same with DOMA.

Considering other recent supreme court rulings:

Corporations were judged to be people, but they were not assigned a gender.

Can Stephen Colbert now marry a corporation? Can he create a corporation and then marry it, or would that be incest?

Can corporations marry corporations? even if they were created and owned by the same people?

@ Bloggit

It ends at adulthood and given consent. Marrying children is not even a reasonable comparison. Polygamy should probably be legal. Marrying your sister, although disturbing in a way, doesn't hurt me in the least. Just because a majority sets a social norm, doesn't give them the right to trample on those that step outside that norm. 50 years ago the idea of a black man and a white woman being together was looked at along the same lines as gay marriage and maybe even incest. In the early 1800's it was considered a form of bestiality because they considered black people to be likened to animals. Society changes, social norms change. In a thousand years they will look back at our time as a time of medieval policies and hatred. That's just how things work.

NSIndiana said:

@bloggit, What part of two consenting adults do you not understand?! The slippery-slope argument is one of nonsense and complete lack of understanding.

bloggit's choice to include children in the argument is undoubtedly stupid, but take a step back and think for a moment (and take your mind out of the current topic of same-sex marriage).

Why are you so focused on the number 2? Where does your opposition to polygamy come from?

When it is made legal...Rush can finally come out and marry his boyfriend Rove!!!!

When it IS made legal through out the land, maybe the churches will get back to what they are supposed to be doing, giving a hand to the sick and poor, etc.....

If the definition of marriage is legally expanded to include those of the same gender, then under the equal treatment provisions of the law, there is no reason for denying polygamy or any other variations of unions.

So, normal marriage doesn't lead to polygamy? Or pedophile?

The fact remains is this is a freedom and if you take religion's belief out, you have no case against it.

Religion's people are the slowest to change in any kind of movement in the US history. Look it up, every movement, they always cry about sin and God, but look how far we have gotten.

It's a state's rights issue.

I don't see where the Constitution gives the Feds any authority to regulate marriage, although I do agree it needs to be defined country-wide. Whether you're married or not defines what benefits you have, your rights as a spouse and parent, and how you pay your taxes. Since some benefits are from the Federal govt (SS, Medicare, pensions, survivor benefits), it needs to be uniform.

People need to realize that this is the 21st century...the year of 2012-2013......Love has no gender, religion, political views, or ethnicity.....What is wrong with two people loving one another and wanting to make it official. Really?! There are more important issues in the world than a same-sex couple wanting to get married and declare their love for another.....If they are two consenting adults, it should be their choice to marry, just like a man and a woman can.....This is getting ridiculous.....People need to get over it, already

If FoxNews is legal...everything else should be legal, not to mention marriage - gay marriage which guarantees more love in our world. FoxNews encourages hatred.

Bloggit has a point, though. A "threesome" was just legally married in Brazil.

Now, about "entitlement reform". If SS is about to go broke then I suggest fixing it before all these marriages are seen as legal in the eyes of the Federal gvmt because there will be more spouses entitled to SS benefits, employer benefits, etc.

All they'll have to do, is go back and read the decision for Loving v. Virginia; that marriage is a fundamental, universal right. I imagine that in 20 years, we'll look at this issue the same as we do at the inter-racial marriage ban. *crossing fingers*

AG99 - I don't see where the Constitution gives the Feds any authority to regulate marriage

The feds don't regulate marriage, they control equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Otherwise mixed-race marriage would still be banned in all the confederate states.

@ BEN- It's a human right's issue. Done deal. Does a gay couple really affect how you live YOUR life? I doubt it. Let the gay community live with the same rights the straights have.

Same people who wanted to keep slaves are the ones backing the negative side of this and the main question is who are these people hurting if they do get married. Answer is No one! Bigots will never die out but they do keep us on our toes.

@ breadex Keep slaves???????? LMAO hey dimwit, see who the slaves are when you let your relationship include a 3rd party ie. the government.

CLOGGIT, bloggit!! Your red blood cells aren't making it to your gray matter... if you have any.

I am a single person and don't see the difference between heterosexual, bisexual, transexual, homosexual or non-sexual loving couples (whatever). Where in our great secular constitution or bill of rigts did it grant heterosexuals special priveleges above all others? It was only the radical religious right that got DOMA passed into law and signed off by Clinton who knew it would be politically bad on Democrats too, if he didn't sign. We need to get RELIGIOUS tax books open since "We The People" are paying the tax bills. I'm sure we will see the hate mongering christian coalition and rightwing nuts with funding and ideas passing back and forth... Repubicans always talk about smaller government EXCEPT when you want to get in our bedroom. If you're worried about polygamy or marrying your sister or children... DON'T DO IT. If you want to do it, go pass laws - remember, America is a land of laws. Fortunately, most of us use our gray matter and know we don't need polygamy or want to marry your sister, or your children. With logic, "We The People Will Overcome" like we did for Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and keep on working on these and other little things like Environmental Rights, Healthcare Rights, etcetera. If you don't want to benefit, just stay home and stay off blogs and you will be blissfully forgotten like many who think like you.

If any of you FOOLS say the "south will rise again" it will only be if it can get up off its' knees!

a concerned citizen 10:That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

• If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
• Case closed.
• Next.

shrekk: Oh. Good point.

@ a concerned citizen:

I can see we're going to have to have a little talk about the birds and the bees.

Marriage is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for procreation.

"We cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same-sex couples," President Obama said in explaining the change."

BUT we can defend the federal government poking it's nose into what States are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against the legalizaton of marajuana?? Seems a little pick and choose to me. This isn't from one side of the aisle or another...I just find the quote very strange given the article I read this morning about Washington and Colorado.

Can you just let them get married so we can stop hearing about this every week? What is the big deal? If they want to get married and listen to the "take the garbage out, pick up your cloths, etc." then let them. Coming from a Center to Right thinker.

Me and my dog just had puppies and I am gonna marry everyone of our furry little kids! /rolleeyes

Freedom with limitations is not really freedom.

a concerned citizen 10:

Funny in all of these somewhat outlandish arguments, people forget two things, people just want to be treated equally, and people (I hope) primarily marry for LOVE!

Get your minds out of the gutter or the nursery or the pocket book. Love is the primary reason then being treated like a full American citizen comes s close second, well for some.

all thse what if's are silly. no matter how you feel about same sex marriage there is no denying the constitution does not allow a set of benefits for one set of people and not another.

the reason 3 way marriages and polygamy is not apllicable is because they are illegal for everyone. the differense is very clear. you can't limit marriage and the federal benefits of marriage to only a man and a woman because you would be denying them something that is legal otherwise. polygamy is illegal for everyone not just straight or gay people. marrying an animal or a child is not legal for anyone. that the part of the what if's people don't consider

@concerned citizen-10

Really? It's not an economically sound idea to allow gay marriage? That might just be the STUPIDEST thing that has been posted here..... Ever occur to you that gay couple end up adopting the unwanted children of the world who end up wards of the state and a drain on the economy?

I'm not gay nor do I have any gay friends, but from the gay couples I have seen that have children at malls or even at my children's schools; I am all for gay marriage and allowing them to adopt. They are the most attentive and caring parents I have ever seen. I would rather the gay couple with the adopted kids living next to me than most of the hetero married couples who have no business trying to raise a child. It's time to evolve people. What is the fear in allowing gay marriage? Are you afraid of catching the gay? If so, I think you can relax. I don't think it's an airborne illness.

I don't understand why there is even laws on crap like this.

now what about decriminalizing MJ ?

America, land of the free and home of the brave

as long as it is preapproved

what was that lyric; "you will do what I way, when I say"

BACK TO THE FRONT !

Marmaduke:

Explain to me how society advances forward in advocating same sex relationships ?

No one's "advocating" it. It's allowing gay couples to have the same protections under federal law that the rest of us have.

IF anything it promotes the end of a civil relationship between man and woman, the two things it takes to create life. God forbid we promote a family who can clearly define a man with Masculine identity, and a woman with feminine identity, knowing there is a difference between the two and that statistically that the best thing for kids is to be in a traditional marriage home with a man and a woman.

So should couples that don't want children be allowed to marry? I don't want children, neither does my boyfriend, yet because we're straight, we can marry anyway. Raising children has nothing to do with marriage. Having children is not required in a marriage, nor is a marriage required to have children.

As for the Federal Government I dont want them sticking their noses into the states affairs. So if a state wants to deny gay marriage then they have the right to do such, just as a state can accept gay marriages.

This has more to do with the federal government recognizing what the states recognize. Right now, in Massachusetts, a gay couple can be married and have a legal marriage under state law. However, even though their marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts, the federal government does not recognize the marriage, and denies these married couples all of the federal benefits that come with marriage. This will hopefully do away with that differentiation between the state governments and the federal government.

Travis E you may not be aware, but we are all not alike. People are different, think different, have different emotions, feelings, beliefs, ethics, lifestyles. I dont care what gays do, but I also stand for pro traditional family values. I should be allowed to have such views. ALso in no way am I lashing out, or wanting to commit any type of physical harm to anyone.

Of course we're not all alike. But under federal law, under the 14th amendment of the Constitution, we should all have equal rights and protections under the law.

So when a person screams tolerance towards me, I scream the same thing back stating where is yours.

You're welcome to dislike gay marriage. You don't have to have one. You don't have to attend one. Your church won't be required to perform one. You can go on disliking it all you want. But everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose (as long as that person is a consenting adult). I strongly disagree with your point of view, but it is your right to have it. However, tolerance is not about agreeing with you, or having to tolerate laws that discriminate against people. I don't agree with DOMA because it excludes part of our nation's population from having the same rights that you and I enjoy.

a concerned citizen.... So you are saying that for a gay couple to adopt... create their own family with a child/children that need loving homes and families are not beneficial to the growth of our nation? Are you nuts? Those children need everything they can get from good families and you would say they are less than because they were adopted by a gay married couple? No one wanted them... they had nothing and their chance of being economically beneficial down the road with a loving family would be a struggle for them - hell anyone! So a gay married couple adopts them. THAT is also known as a family! raising productive "economically beneficial people. Geez... get a grip.

Even with a Supreme Court decision, it would be up to the individual states. I think that is fair.

I don't think it would ever be fair to marry in groups, like some people believe. Marriage should be a couple, not a group of people even if they are adults.

Yeah the absurd, "Why then can polygamists not be legally married" argument which has been shot down numerous times, comes trotting out again attempting to sway the ignorant.

Here's the bottom line. The government (the State) is not at all Constitutionally required to provide legal recognition/benefits/protections to ANY marriages at all. Period. Nowhere in the Constitution is that required.

However, what IS required is that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of (equal treatment of) the laws, REGARDLESS of their individual characteristics (be it race, color, religion, gender, etc...) . Therefore so long as States HAVE marriage law that permits two otherwise unrelated consenting adults to be legally married, then they cannot say they have to be of two different genders without a valid secular rationale and reason for such discrimination.

To date there are no such rational reasons. Any reasons some states have attempted to give to restrict marriage to opposite-gender couples are reasons that apply equally well to same-gender couples or are reasons that are not universally applied to all opposite-gender couples who choose to marry.

As for the law indicating the NUMBER of people permitted in the contractual union of marriage (2), THAT is perfectly Constitutional. The Constitution says nothing about protecting any and all group sizes equally. It protects individual citizens equal rights, not groups equal rights. Hence if the law says you can marry ONE other consenting unrelated adult, that is perfectly fine, and any other restrictions based on individual characteristics (like gender) need to have a valid reason. Without such a reason then they CANNOT restrict the law based on the genders of the two participants.

@a concerned citizen.... really? marriage is you solution to the economy? what you have described is an ant colony. ants procreate to make more workers. We don't. And yes, those children have been created, by heterosexuals that can't or won't take responsibility for creating them, which is why it is a travesty that gay couples can't adopt in all states. Gay couples that would love nothing more than to take that child and raise it in a loving, stable home and provide for it in a way that it's heterosexual parents couldn't or wouldn't. And as far as an economical benefit.... I don't know how many gay couples you know, but gay weddings tend to be very extravagant. Ask a wedding planner how economically beneficial gay marriage would be. You might be surprised...

Gay couples cannot progreate. Artificial incinimation can allow some to have children.

If a pair of gay men want to adopt a child and raise it, GO FOR IT. They will probably teach their child to be a better person than many of the normal couples now days. Many people have children that have no means of caring for them, or that the children that are taken from their parents due to neglect or abuse. Those children need parents that will help them grow.

Want to talk about slippery slop ideology, lets. Buy a car, have a wreck - you do not need a car because you will wreck it. Buy a book on drugs, make drugs - you are arrested for making drugs.

Think about things please before you spout off. If a gay couple is recognized as married, how is that going to be related to pedophilia.

@ concerned citizen

Allowing single-sex couples to marry does not decrease the number of children (or little workers, in your scheme) produced. So it is at worst neutral by your economic standard.

A concerned citizen:

Allowing gay marriage isn't an economically sound idea? Are you high? Do you have any idea how much money it'll bring IN? In case you haven't noticed, there's a pretty large faction of the LGBT community that have very flashy, flamboyant tastes. Which, coincidentally, happen to be pretty damn expensive. I imagine Lifetime (or whatever channel) will end up with a gay version of Bridezilla.

That's actually not true - legalizing alcohol did not pave the way for legalizing other drugs; legalizing marriages between those of different races (yes, was against the law) didn't then allow marriages between different species - just as people are so adamant against two consenting adults marrying, they would most certainly not allow incestuous marriages or underage marriages, although it's not that long ago that people as young as 13 and 14 were routinely getting married - my grandmother was 14 and my grandfather 28 when they married; he wasn't a peophile by any means, it was just accepted in those times - obviously, this is no longer acceptable socially, and never will be. So comments like yours just throw up smoke screens that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Marriage precedes recorded history and when Government start recording marriage ceremonies, the laws required that they be conducted by clergy. This is a clear case of separation of Church and State. Why do liberals only recognize that when it is to the detriment of churches? Most of these efforts to legalize gay marriage starts with some form of threat to churches that would not perform them, like withdrawal of their status as non-profit organizations.

For those of you attempting to make the "slippery slope" argument answer me this...

Why doesn't HETEROSEXUAL marriage lead to any of those things? Especially polygamy, seeing as that tends to come from patriarchal societies that are vehemently anti-gay and engaged in only in a heterosexual manner.

Why would changing the gender of one party in a contract lead to the repeal of the laws banning beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia...???

Have you ever heard of legal capacity for informed consent?

@ A CONCERNED CITIZEN - 10 -- Are you saying that infertile people in heterosexual relationships should not be able to marry because they cannot procreate and cannot create new workers for the economy? If two heterosexual adults decide they do not want children, should their marriage be void since they aren't contributing to the workforce? Your logic is asinine.

Onemanonewomanmarriage but u are ok with lesbians having sex with each other....whew I'm glad we cleared that up......LMAO at these insane arguments.....try arguing this $hit before the supreme court.....I can't wait 4 this ruling to shut all u dayum bible thumpers up once and for all....I hope they amend the constitution too....really flip u out even more...hell maybe u all will move to Iran where religion rules!!!

a concerned citizen

Marriage is one way to keep the economy sound. When you marry, you procreate and create new workers for the workforce. A gay couple cannot procreate. They can adopt, but that child has already been made.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Procreation is NOT a requirement, nor a guaranteed result, of marriage.

On top of that, you do not need to be married to procreate. AND... gay people will still "not procreate" regardless of marriage.

You see, procreation occurs at the biological level, and has nothing to do with legal document you sign to contractually bind you to another party.

Now I know what you are thinking: "All dis scienc talk is just rong. ya'll conservatives dont need no stinkin scienc becuz you gots da bible. YEEEEEE HAAAAAA." Unfortunately for you, science is correct in regards to procreation. Marriage, legal documents, and "da bible" have nothing to do with it.

Which GOP troll retread of La Bama? Oh well, they're on "ignore" along with the rest of them.

Boy, am I looking forward to seeing what the Supremes have to say about THIS issue. Another partisan split I'll bet with Antonin "eat your broccoli" Scolia sharing his wit and wisdom with the court and the rest of us.

Have a nice weekend everybody.....not you La Bama, you're a pig

A concerned citizen - you truly don't have a clue, do you? What about the couples who either choose not to have children or who can't have children? Should they be restricted from marriage? And, the older couple that is past childbearing age - no chance for marriage for them, according to you, right?

Your post is beyond sad and pathetic - it's delusional.

Boy, am I looking forward to seeing what the Supremes have to say about THIS issue.

Diana Ross is going to weigh in on this??? Well I guess that's kind of fitting. ;)

if procreation was a requirement then why don't we start testing fertility before a couple can get married

those who are not fertile just can't get married.

this may be the dumbest argument against gay marriage

When President Obama's gay marriage mandate (which forces alll heterosexual couples to admit at least one gay person into the union takes effect in late 2015 (It's in the fine print fo the Heath Care bill). I predict a widespread outcry. IT will come not just from married women who don't want to share their men - but from gay men who don't want to share theirs. Not to mention increasing the insecurity of gay women. Oh brother ....

I think you are misunderstanding what bloggit is saying. Bloggit looks forward to the day when he can marry his sister (irregardless of her age) and in a polygomist manner have man on dog sex like Rick Santorum desires.

Of course I could be wrong, but I always wonder about the people that present straw men arguments as though they are factual. I guess I'm just suspicious after all those religious leaders that railed against something or other and were then caught doing those activities.

If you are not homosexual, don't marry another person of the same sex. Allowing homosexual marriage does not mean it is a requirement for you or your children, or even your pets.

Is your grasp of reality or your sexual identity that tenuous? Are you afraid it is catching? Will they out produce you and make you a minority and restrict your rights? Don't you want other people to be happy and enjoy the same rights you do when it comes to hospital visitation or medical decisions of your loved ones?

Allowing same sex marriage will not have any effect on yours (unless I hit a nerve in my above rant).

Many have already pointed out that allowing gay marriage could benefit the economy because of the additional ceremonies and receptions that would occur.

As a lawyer who sometimes dabbles in divorce work, I couldn't possibly agree more :)

Okay Concerned, but it is econimically sound to tax them the same as single straight people but then deny them the same rights as straight couples if they wish to marry someone of the same sex? Can't have it both ways. Last time I checked sexual preference wasn't a question when I filed my taxes. And how many of the people collecting entitlements camr from straight people? We've populated qiye well. Your argument has no ground.

Consenting adults can include father-daughter, sister-sister, uncle-nephew, grandfather granddaughter etc... Consenting adults can also include brother-brother-sister, aunt-niece-daughter, grandfather-father-son etc...

The argument against this "slippery slope" is the "ew" factor or the "obviously that's wrong" argument, which ironically seems to be one of the pillars of argument proffered by those who object to same-sex marriage (the "ew" factor). People are simply saying that the "consenting adults" argument is flawed or incomplete at best, and what it really means is "consenting-adults who popular culture currently classifies as 'gay' or 'lesbian.'" This definition is perpetually evolving, and such subjectiveness creates uncertainty in law. The current regime of male-female marriage only is clear and easy to define.

"Gay" and "Lesbian" people are just as American as me. I am sure they can raise a child just as well as I. Some probably can raise a child much better than I. The issue is not how American they are, or whether equal protection under the 14th amendment applies to them as a class, the problem is that they are a class that is hard to define. For a man to marry a man, would he have to sign a pledge that says "yes, I am only sexually attracted to members of my own sex, and such is one of my reasons for marrying my lifelong partner" in order to qualify for marriage? (As in, to determine "gayness" to prevent the system from being used by non "gay" people who are trying to game the system or use it for nefarious purposes). What would prevent a father and son, who have no sexually intimate feelings toward each other, from marrying simply for tax benefits (such as bracket shifting)?

The issue is slightly more complicated than "equal protection" or "progressive America vs. regressive neanderthals" and, as John Locke (from LOST) would say, "AND WE ALL KNOW IT!" Let's be adults and discuss these matters with an honest mind and an open heart.

Cheyelles - Even with a Supreme Court decision, it would be up to the individual states.

I take it you also support state bans on mixed-race marriage?

I think that is fair.

How is fair to grant special rights and privileges to one class of Americans while denying them to another?

I'll start by saying that I have nothing against polygamy. It doesn't harm me in the slightest.

That said, if we started allowing polygamy, it would require a very large re-write of existing laws. Allowing for same-sex marriage will not change any laws, save for maybe having to change 'wife' and 'husband' to 'spouse' and 'spouse'. But think about what would happen if a polygamous couple broke up. Does the wife have to divorce the husband, or the husband plus every other wife? Does she have any claim to anything involving the other wives (any home if there's more than one, any property incurred during the time all were married, income/alimony, etc)? If Wife A has a child, does Wife B have any rights to see that child, and do they have any rights when it comes to making parental decisions? If more than one wife divorces, does the husband have to pay different amounts in child support or alimony? The laws are written with two people in mind, any more than that would require a re-write or new laws, which is why polygamy is still going to be illegal for a while.

Ban All marriages you all have overlooked the number one cause of Divorce Marriage. If we ban all marriages we could save billions of dollars in court fees every year.Also those on the right wing side of things shut up about Big government when you want big government. Jesus said turn the other cheek yet what these people do should have no Interference with you practicing your religion your moralls and your ethics. Now when you want only your way to become law that is not acceptance or patience it is narrow minded meaning your way or no way. You have the right to your ideas as i do mine the difference you want to ban mine. You all are no different from the Taliban if you dont believe as you do it should be illegal. Live your life the way You want with your faith and let others live theirs.

Here we go again with the misinformation and the selective (mis)understanding of research:

1.) There is no research that suggests that a child needs a mother and a father. There is, however, research suggesting that a child does better with two parents. However, almost none of the research can speak to whether or not those two parents have to be of opposite sex. In fact, recent research that has looked at families of lesbian parents, gay parents, and straight parents found that having lesbian parents actually led to the best outcomes for children. Of course, that is only one study and we'd have to do more before we could come to any strong conclusions. But the point is this: there is no research that says that a child needs a mother and a father. Only that they do better with two parents. Please stop spreading misinformation.

2.) Despite arguments to the contrary, there are, in fact, several economic reasons to support gay marriage. Gay couples would be more likely to adopt (and more likely to be approved for adoption than a single parent). Reducing the number of unwanted children in the adoption system would be beneficial for society in several ways. Another way that gay marriage would be economical is that the sudden influxes of marriage ceremonies would provide at least a small boost to the economy.

3.) Even if there weren't economic reasons to support gay marriage, laws against gay marriage would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

4.) Arguments about pedophilia, marrying one's dog, incest, etc. are slippery slope arguments that hold no water. In each of those cases we have the problem of consent (and yes, that includes cases of incest as the vast majority of research out there suggests that most incestual relationships are the product of coercion). No such issue with gay marriage. We have already long recognized the ability of an adult man and/or an adult woman to enter into a marriage contract. The only thing laws against gay marriage prevented is that those consenting adults were not allowed to marry other consenting adults of the same sex (for reasons no has yet adequately explained).

5.) Arguments about polygamy are also a slippery slope, but for different reasons. One big reason that polygamy is an issue because it would cause a great deal of problems for those state and federal benefits that marriage confers. For example, if two individuals initially marry and then each of them marry someone else -- who is actually married to whom? Who do the benefits apply to? Do all parties have to agree to the marriage? Do all parties have to agree to a divorce? So on and so forth. However, this isn't a moral issue so much as it is a legal and policy issue. I and (I believe) many others who support gay marriage are not morally opposed to polygamy. And if there was enough interest in completely overhauling the laws, benefits, tax code, etc. necessary for polygamy to be enacted, then I would not vote against it. However, same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy anymore than heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy. So, again, it's a slippery slope argument. One does not necessitate the other.

(sorry for the respost. Posted it on the wrong thread initially.)

@Glen-12

As for the law indicating the NUMBER of people permitted in the contractual union of marriage (2), THAT is perfectly Constitutional. The Constitution says nothing about protecting any and all group sizes equally. It protects individual citizens equal rights, not groups equal rights. Hence if the law says you can marry ONE other consenting unrelated adult, that is perfectly fine, and any other restrictions based on individual characteristics (like gender) need to have a valid reason. Without such a reason then they CANNOT restrict the law based on the genders of the two participants.

You make no sense. If equal rights applies to individuals, and individuals should have the right to choose the gender of their spouse, then shouldn't individuals also have the right to choose the number of spouses that they have? If marriage is not restricted to traditional heterosexual marriage between two people, then all bets are off. Why not polygamy? Why not incest? And why not NAMBLA? The Constitution does not define what an adult is. That is a social construct as well. So why can't a little boy legally consent?

No, perversion needs to be nipped in the bud. We need to stop it at the homos, before every other pervert thinks he has a right also.

Mebraav,

Consenting adults can include father-daughter, sister-sister, uncle-nephew, grandfather granddaughter etc... Consenting adults can also include brother-brother-sister, aunt-niece-daughter, grandfather-father-son etc...

Why doesn't HETEROSEXUAL marriage lead to any of those things? Especially polygamy, seeing as that tends to come from patriarchal societies that are vehemently anti-gay and engaged in only in a heterosexual manner.

Why would changing the gender of one party in a contract lead to the repeal of the laws banning beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia...???

People are simply saying that the "consenting adults" argument is flawed or incomplete at best, and what it really means is "consenting-adults who popular culture currently classifies as 'gay' or 'lesbian.'" This definition is perpetually evolving, and such subjectiveness creates uncertainty in law.

No it isn't. We have laws against incest, NOT because of capacity for informed consent, but because the state has a compelling reason to ban it. It's based in abuse and leads to genetic medical conditions, both of which are harmful and expensive to society. If you can find me to immediate family members who want to marry each other where abuse WASN'T involved you might have a case. Furthermore, anything outside of "immediate" is legal. As in cousins can marry each other and what not.

And again, how are incest laws related to the gender of a contracting party? Why doesn't straight marriage lead to them then?

The current regime of male-female marriage only is clear and easy to define.

So is legal capacity for informed consent. That's why it's used in ALL OTHER contractual, legal issues.

For a man to marry a man, would he have to sign a pledge that says "yes, I am only sexually attracted to members of my own sex, and such is one of my reasons for marrying my lifelong partner" in order to qualify for marriage?

Nope, seeing as straight people don't have to do that.

(As in, to determine "gayness" to prevent the system from being used by non "gay" people who are trying to game the system or use it for nefarious purposes).

Because straight people don't get married for the benefits or game the system???

What would prevent a father and son, who have no sexually intimate feelings toward each other, from marrying simply for tax benefits (such as bracket shifting)?

The same thing that stops a father and DAUGHTER or a mother and SON from doing that currently.

"And only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children," says Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage."

It is truly unfathomable that, in this day and age, even some right-wing conservative "family-values" wingnut could make such an outrageous statement. Has he ever even heard of adoption? I guess those families that adopt are somehow less appropriate to him...what a slap in the face. Some set of "family-values" he's got.

It would appear that some people choose to desperately cling to 1950's ideals that weren't even accurate THEN...they were only portrayed that way, in movies, on TV, and the like. Like everyone was totally happy in the 50's because it was taboo to discuss or consider any of these topics publicly. Typical conservative denial of actual reality, by choosing to bury their head in the sand instead of trying to deal with real, obvious truth. It blows my mind, it really does.

Mebrav,

Incestual relationships are not about the "ew" factor (though, of course, for most people it does have an "ew factor"). It's about protection of the individuals involved. Research suggests that incestual relationships are often not truly consensual and are often the product of coercion and abuse by one family member over another. Again -- this does not apply to same-sex marriages in anyway.

Also, the thing about signing something to claim you are "gay" makes no sense. And this idea of gaming the system is particularly nonsensical given that the same could be said for heterosexual marriages. In fact, it appears that there is plenty system gaming when it comes to heterosexual marriages so that people can receive federal and state benefits and/or become an American citizen. So, the issue of system gaming is not specific to gay marriage but the civil institution of marriage in general. If you take issue with that, I will assume you take issue with heterosexual marriage as well.

the procreation argument is a little comical, someone actually claimed gay marrage would be bad for the economy because they can't procreate and create new workers !

that is hilarious. with this logic, it would seem that maybe it would be BETTER for the economy, since many problems come from overbreeding. Overpopulation is more of an issue than underpopulation, I really doubt that we need to be worried about sufficent breeding to sustain the workforce :)

nice try though

recently read an article that made the main page that was something about a loser getting banned from further procreating because he has fathered 9 kids but has not supported any of them. but gay marrage would be bad for the economy because they can't procreate ! HAHA

Mebraav-Straight couples can commit marital fraud as easily as gay couples. I dont hear anyone fighting for the right to marry their sibling or parent. Do straight poeople have to declair they will only be attracted to members of the opisite sex when they marry? This is about equal rights under the law, not special rights for one group over another. If a person is expected to pay the same taxes and follow the same laws as another group then all deserve the same rights. And to Sarah3043284, you're my hero!

@Seeking....for once, I agree with you totally:

A concerned citizen - you truly don't have a clue, do you? What about the couples who either choose not to have children or who can't have children? Should they be restricted from marriage? And, the older couple that is past childbearing age - no chance for marriage for them, according to you, right?

Your post is beyond sad and pathetic - it's delusional.

Marmaduke49 - someone above already did a pretty good job of responding to your post, but I would like to add a few things...

Explain to me how society advances forward in advocating same sex relationships ? IF anything it promotes the end of a civil relationship between man and woman, the two things it takes to create life. God forbid we promote a family who can clearly define a man with Masculine identity, and a woman with feminine identity, knowing there is a difference between the two and that statistically that the best thing for kids is to be in a traditional marriage home with a man and a woman.

Please explain how allowing same sex couples to marry promotes teh end of civil relationships between a man and a woman. There will be no law forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex. If you are not gay, how does this affect you? My marriage and relationship with my husband will not suffer in the slightest if gays are allowed to marry. And as many have posted, there are a great number of loving, caring and nurturing gay parents who are doing a much better job of raising well rounded kids than some of the straight couples I know.

As for the Federal Government I dont want them sticking their noses into the states affairs. So if a state wants to deny gay marriage then they have the right to do such, just as a state can accept gay marriages.

The Federal Gov't won't tell states that they have to allow gay marriage. But what they should do is prohibit discrimination against gay couples who want to get married, as per the 14th amendment. No state can lawfully discriminate against anyone, no matter what their citizens vote on.

Travis E you may not be aware, but we are all not alike. People are different, think different, have different emotions, feelings, beliefs, ethics, lifestyles. I dont care what gays do, but I also stand for pro traditional family values. I should be allowed to have such views. ALso in no way am I lashing out, or wanting to commit any type of physical harm to anyone.

And yet you expect others, who by your own admittance, have different feelings, beliefs, ethics and lifestyles than you, to be lawfully prohibited from practicing their own beliefs, feelings, etc. Because, I like many others, fully believe that it is not only right, but 100% ethical for 2 people, regardless of their gender, to marry. Why should your beliefs be law but mine are not? How does your belief outweigh mine? To me, pro family values mean that everyone should have the opportunity for a family of their own. How is that wrong? How does that hurt a "traditional" family? You and I, as a straight people, are in no way affected by two consenting adults getting married.

It's about damn time the Supreme s rule on this. Either way, it makes no sense for some states to allow it and others not to. Absolutely ridiculous and senseless to have a law apply differently in each state. The law should be equal throughout the land and enough of this states' rights crap to decide on this sensitive issue. Either way, resolve it once and for all. It will not affect or harm my marriage one way or the other.

While the Prop 8 ruling might be narrow (CA must allow gay marriage), the anti-DOMA cases will lead to a national ruling: DOMA is unconstitutional.

If traditionally state-rights judges support DOMA their homophobia will be on display.

So Mebraav wants to go with the slippery-slope of incestuous marriages.

Oh these people.

Again we are talking about equal protection of the laws. Marriage law exists and it has certain restrictions. Restrictions that must have a valid reason when they unduly impact citizens based on their individual characteristics (like say gender). There are no valid reasons to restrict the marriage law to those who are of different genders. Any reasons so far given are those which apply just as well to same-gender couples (e.g. it protects the couple and their children) or are reasons that are not universally applied to all opposite gender couples who choose to marry (e.g. marriage is about procreation).

Marriage law, as it exists, is about creating an immediate family relation where one does not currently exist. Marriage is between two people who are not already closely related. A valid case CAN be made for that restriction because the State would have no interest in subverting an existing family structure. Immediate family members already have various legal protections and recognitions based on being an immediate family member. While spouse takes the highest priority, it would not be in the State's interest to make a child or parent a spouse to one another, subverting the relationship of all other immediate family members.

Furthermore restrictions on not being able to marry someone in your immediate family are equally applied to all individuals, whereas restrictions based on gender do unfairly target those who are only physically, emotionally, and spiritually attracted to those of the same gender. A heterosexual who can't marry an immediate family member can STILL find someone of the opposite gender to marry that they are physically, emotionally, and spiritually attracted to. While under most current laws, a homosexual will NOT be able to marry any such person they are so attracted to.

All Americans should be equal under the law, there is absolutely no reason a gay couple be prevented from marrying. When this case is resolved all the legal bills should be sent to the Mormon Church. These religous bigots sit in their isolated state and think they can dictate to the entire country how the rest of us should live.

The country dodged a bullet because the American people came close to electing one of these fasists as President of the United States. I know the response my comment will receive but anybody the was paying attention before the election has to agree that Romney was covering up more than just his tax returns. I'm convinced he also had a hidden religous agenda.

Well, aquatone, at least you admit that your mind is blown. How the hell do you know what family life was like for everybody in the 50s.....or now, for that matter. Because you declare something "obvious truth" means nothing, and your offensive, arrogant attitude will convince nobody to agree with you.

@Sarah

Why would changing the gender of one party in a contract lead to the repeal of the laws banning beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia...???

Because if you can allow one kind of perversion, why shouldn't other kinds of perversion be allowed?

@Siobhan27

Incestual relationships are not about the "ew" factor (though, of course, for most people it does have an "ew factor"). It's about protection of the individuals involved. Research suggests that incestual relationships are often not truly consensual and are often the product of coercion and abuse by one family member over another. Again -- this does not apply to same-sex marriages in anyway.

Some incestuous relationships are coerced, and others not. Same with homosexual relationships. This is a straw man argument. If any consensual adult relationship should be sanctified by the state, then why not consensual incestuous relationships? Why not consensual relationships with more than two people?

What is really strange is that the state of California will allow first cousins to marry. But Not homosexual???

I would not use the polygamy argument against gay marriage but would the gay argument to support polygamy. If adults want to marry in groups so be it. It won't affect me.

As to divorces in the case of gay or polygamy marriages with no children then it is a division of property and I'm sure the courts can handle that. If it is children in a gay marriage then new case law will be created and precedents will be set as we go along. In the case of a polygamist divorce then gender will come into play but I don't see how it is insurmountable.

• If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
• Case closed.
• Next.

Funny you said that. It's the lack of gay marriage (and existing hostility toward openly gay) that many were (unknowingly) marrying gay people. Usually that would happen amongst overly religious folks, i.e. those who are against gay marriage.

Tabasco Ed,

"Perversion" is subjective. Everyone has different things they consider perverse. I think Tobasco sauce is perverse, should we outlaw it? The difference between those things and homosexuality is that gay adults have legal capacity for informed consent, animals, children, dead people, and toasters do not. They are also harmful to other innocent citizens. Why do you think what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is your business?

That's what makes your standpoint so completely illogical.

Why not just call it "Same Sex Union" (because that's what it is, ie "untraditional Marriage") instead of specifically calling it "Marriage"; and then afford all the Equal Protections of the Law that "Traditional Marriage" provides? Equality exists only in the embracing (by distinction and definition) of "differences", for what they are.

I know People who have "Lasagna" as their Thanksgiving Meal. It's not "the" Traditional Thanksgivng Meal, but it's still "Thanksgivng Day", as a Holiday "of Tradition" for them, too. The Federal Government has a legitimate interest in a Nationwide upholding of "Tradition/Traditional", to a point. (still to be defined, I assume)

"Equal Protection" is not necessarily to be found in "UNdefining" the other to make them as one with yourself, either.

Why not just call it "Same Sex Union" (because that's what it is, ie "untraditional Marriage") instead of specifically calling it "Marriage"; and then afford all the Equal Protections of the Law that "Traditional Marriage" provides? Equality exists only in the embracing of "differences".

Because why should we have to rewrite and/or write a whole new set of laws over a mere word, when equal protection under the law already takes care of this issue? We wouldn't have to write anything new or invest any money and/or time if we just follow the supreme law of the land.

Tabasco Ed,

Try again. The vast majority of incestual relationship have been shown to be the product of emotional, psychological and sexual abuse and coercion. They are known to be harmful to the individuals involved. But, actually -- if the relationship was truly consensual, then more power to them. Let them get married. But, we know that to be incredibly rare. The same can not be said for homosexual relationships, despite what you might want to convince yourself of.

Not to mention, we allow straight marriages. So why do we not allow marriage between related people of the opposite sex? I mean, if you support straight marriage you would have to support incestual marriage between opposite sex individuals, as well, right? According to your own logic, that is.

Which is a good example of why these slippery slope arguments are particularly pointless unless one is also arguing that heterosexual marriage should not be legal. The only reason we're even having a discussion about same-sex marriage is because we allow straight marriage. Given that and based on the reasoning provided here by the slippery slope advocates, straight marriage leads to gay marriage, beastiality, pedophilia, incestual relationships, necrophilia and so forth. And thus, straight marriage will lead to perversion and should be outlawed. Right?

I'm against Gay marriage.

It will lesson the meaning of " A woman's place is in the kitchen "

It's a joke. If you take it seriously please walk over to nearest wall and bang your head against it 5 times. Repeat if necessary.

We are talking about equal rights here people! I don't see how it can be any other way. Homosexual people NEED to be granted the same rights as the rest of the people. Why would anyone want it any other way?!? If you want to commit to someone else what the hell should it matter to anyone else that person's gender!!!! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL UNDER THE CONSTITUION!

Mystery

Why not just call it "Same Sex Union" (because that's what it is, ie "untraditional Marriage") instead of specifically calling it "Marriage"; and then afford all the Equal Protections of the Law that "Traditional Marriage" provides?

I've got a better option for you.....

We call gay-marriage: "marriage"

We call heterosexual marriage: "pre-divorce unions"... because, let's be honest, that is what they really are.

Now I am a heterosexual, but I am also an honest man. So I fully admit that heterosexuals are complete FAILURES at marriage. We have OVER a 50% divorce rate. OVER!!!! That means that more than half fail... or, the majority fail. So, they are really just "pre-divorce unions" when you look at it logically.

So let's stop beating around the bush and call this complete FAILURE of an institution what it really is... it is the legal contract you sign before you get divorced.

Sound good?

For SCOTUS: Uphold DOMA, a FEDERAL LAW.

FEDERAL LAW.

Trumped by the Constitution.

For SCOTUS: Uphold DOMA, a FEDERAL LAW.

That's funny... you said the EXACT OPPOSITE about Obamacare.

It's nice to see that you treat the constitution the same way you treat the bible: pick and choose what you like, ignore what you don't like.

Ido,

I assume you are not a states rights advocate, correct? I assume that you believe the federal law should have a say over state matters. Just checking, since that's what support of DoMA implies. Or are you one of those individuals who is all about state rights until it isn't convenient to be in support of state rights?

Sara Moreno - Absolutely agree on that point! We are wasting valuable time and money preventing this equality. Although I am Christian by faith, I do not believe everything or following everything that is written in the Holy Bible. And when it is my time to be judged I will not flinch when called to account for my belief on this matter.

Equality under the law.

...it's in the constitution.

Yep, and in no way is a gay person discriminated against on this issue than anyone else. I cannot marry another man and a gay man cannot marry another man. That's equality. To see it any other way is idiotic.

Just what can't gay people understand about the definition of marriage as being between a MAN and a WOMAN, period? I am fine with a "common union" between gays. where they have the same rights as married couples. Just DON'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE. Call it something else. You guys are creative.... Think of something to call it and go with it. I wish this stupid issue would go away.

Oh wait, I was going to comment, but Sarah seems to enjoy the sound of her own voice. Equal rights? Let's see, every citizen has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one said they aren't free to have sex with whom they wish. Now, when it comes to federal law, what's the compelling state interest in recognizing gay unions? I'm sure a lot of people would be happier if they legalized cocaine, that doesn't mean the government has to oblige. And, doesn't equal protection clause have to pass a rational basis test? There's no gay gene and gays, as a whole, aren't powerless -- Last time I checked, they seem to demand an apology from everyone.

Btw Sarah,

So all homosexuality takes place between consenting adults? Whatever happened to gay and lesbian teens? Apparently, legal consent and emotional bonds are two different issues. Pedophiles are already trying to change the definition of pedophilia and have it removed from the list of mental illnesses, which homosexuality can still be diagnosed as: provided the person feels distress. Bestiality is legal in at least 10 states, but the point is moot with animals anyway, as they are the property of their owner. I guess the next time fido pees on the neighbors lawn, it's coming out of his dog bowl! Hope they accept kibbles and bits. Oh, I know, let's just get Fido to file a restraining order against his owner for not using KY jelly.... Not going to happen, sorry Fido, you just have to take it up the butt next time. How does one have sex with a toaster? If it's a female, Yeah, that's just not working out to well. Also, do I have to get consent from the toaster, to make my toast, in the morning? What happens if my toaster wants a raise? I better get on that.

Alan and ItisWhat,

If you want to play that game, then I can play too.

As a woman, I am not allowed to marry a woman. But a man is allowed to marry a woman. That's discriminatory.

ItisWhat,

Studies by many different groups around the world (including China, of all places) demonstrated that homosexuality did not fit the definition of a psychological disorder, meaning that it didn't pose direct harm to the self or to others. No matter how you cut, we already know that pedophilia is directly harmful to children. Pedophilia will never be made legal because of that reason. Please stop equivocating.

Marmaduke49 - the federal government has already "stuck its nose in state affairs" regarding marriage. What part of "thousand of federal benefits for married couples did you miss? Or the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia?

Further sir, your logic is flawed. Same-sex marriage couples will NOT negatively impact opposite-marriage intercourse and the procreation of children. First, not all opposite-sex relationships produce children. Second, some same sex couples I know have children (surrogacy or artificial insemination).

Lastly sir, I'd like to see the source for your statistical statement. Thank you.

Alan

DON'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE

Are you serious? A word... this is all about a f***ing WORD!!!

Grow the f*** up, you child. How old are you? I expect this kind of stupid logic from a 5 year old, but are you a grown man? Arguing over a f***ing word?

GROW UP!

I'm fine with gay marriage but I'm not fine with the perks that come from being married. The perks where set up so people would get rewards for having kids, There are perks for adopting children that don't have anything to do with being married or not so that being said, it's time we get rid of the perks married people get!

Sarah-3043284, #1.98- Sarah! You're usually so good! How do you miss the point that I never said "re-write" or "write new" Laws? I said afford the exact same "Protections" under the Law. You're not going to get around a Male/Female "factor" of some kind, coming into play somewhere, when you're talking about and dealing with a "Sexuality" premise.

Is this not a Compromise? Would not both sides get exactly what they each say they want?

Mystery,

We would have to, in order to follow your conclusion on this. Or we could just apply the law equally like we're supposed to.

ITIS,

You really need to get over me, but here we go again...

Equal rights? Let's see, every citizen has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That logic failed in Loving v. Virginia, why would it all of a sudden hold water now when we're discussing the same thing. Marriage and its legality between protected classes, i.e. GENDER.

Now, when it comes to federal law, what's the compelling state interest in recognizing gay unions?

This is a civil rights matter. We don't need a compelling state interest in order to EXPAND civil rights, only to CONTRACT them.

Duh.

I'm sure a lot of people would be happier if they legalized cocaine, that doesn't mean the government has to oblige

We don't have a civil right to cocaine.

And, doesn't equal protection clause have to pass a rational basis test?

You mean the 14th Amendment, and no it doesn't.

So all homosexuality takes place between consenting adults? Whatever happened to gay and lesbian teens? Apparently, legal consent and emotional bonds are two different issues.

Just like straight kids have sex, that doesn't mean we allow them to get married. This is completely off point.

which homosexuality can still be diagnosed as: provided the person feels distress

Wrong. Find me homosexuality in the DSM-IV. If you can't, it can't be a diagnosis.

The rest of your dribble about animals and pedophiles can only be logical if you can answer my questions, which AS ALWAYS, you haven't done...

Why doesn't HETEROSEXUAL marriage lead to any of those things? Especially polygamy, seeing as that tends to come from patriarchal societies that are vehemently anti-gay and engaged in only in a heterosexual manner.

Why would changing the gender of one party in a contract lead to the repeal of the laws banning beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia...???

You should know all this by now. We've been over it A LOT. And for someone who doesn't like the sound of my voice, you sure to address me a lot.

mguy-478,

You grow up! Were did you go to school? Learn the definition of marriage. Geez.

And Siobhan: Your logic is just plain STUPID. Congratulations

mguy-478, #1.102- :) Thank you for not taking my head off for my comment!

Sarah-3043284, #1.115- I don't understand your reply.... "We would have to"?

The state of California VOTED...just like they did for OBAMA... now you cannot have it both ways...

THE PEOPLE VOTED... if you believe that then you MUST say that CALIFORNIA CAN BAN GAY MARRIAGE BASED ON THE PEOPLES VOTE... just like OBAMA won...right???

@Siobhan27

As a woman, I am not allowed to marry a woman. But a man is allowed to marry a woman. That's discriminatory.

And? As a man Joe homo doesn't have the right to marry Brad Pitt, but he does have the same option as you to marry a person of the opposite sex. Sounds like equal treatment to me.

Studies by many different groups around the world (including China, of all places) demonstrated that homosexuality did not fit the definition of a psychological disorder, meaning that it didn't pose direct harm to the self or to others.

Yes, but that does not negate the fact that it can still be considered a mental illness if a person feels "distressed". And, that is only valid in the cases of consensual homosexual activity, that says nothing of sodomy or same-sex sexual assault. That also says nothing of the numerous cases of sexually transmitted diseases spread by the gay community, so I wouldn't go so far as to say homosexuality harms no one.

No matter how you cut, we already know that pedophilia is directly harmful to children. Pedophilia will never be made legal because of that reason. Please stop equivocating.

I agree that pedophilia harms children, however, that has no baring on the sexual attraction of pedophiles, who are currently working to have the laws changed. At best, you can assume that it will never be legalized, but that assuming pedophiles don't follow on the shoulders of homosexuals. The main difference being that homosexuals just use more benign slogans.

Alan

You grow up! Were did you go to school? Learn the definition of marriage. Geez.

First recorded instance of marriage law occurred on the Code of Hammurabi, in ancient Babylon, BEFORE the advent of Christianity. The original intent of these laws pertained to property rights, and NOT the gender of those involved.

So the "definition" of this WORD you care so much about, is the contractual binding between two parties wherein property rights, assets and debt are shared between the parties.

You still want to argue over a word, little boy? Perhaps I should quote Shakespeare for you? Or is that over your head?

Where did you go to school, kid? Oh... let me guess. Home-schooled by a bible-thumper who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old and a man can survive in the belly of a whale. Am I getting close, cupcake?

Mystery,

What you suggest means that we would have to develop and legislate a whole new relationship status. The "civil union" which currently doesn't carry the benefits of marriage. We would have to rewrite family law, insurance law, probate law, and everything else, in addition to legally defining that union itself. Then, we would have to go through the whole "precedent" setting and case law as they run through the courts for the first time.

Or, we could just allow them equal protection and to be governed under current marriage law, including all the other ways those laws interact with other laws.

"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Arnold Schwarzenegger

@Sarah,
You really need to get over yourself. When was the last time a gay person was made to ride in the back of the bus, denied the right to vote, or made to drink from a separate fountain? By the way, gays have more in common with slavery than civil rights, as both are based in an ideology, not biology. Racism is a myth invented to make money. Loving Vs Virginia, settled that one heterosexual man was equal to another, regardless of skin color, but that says nothing about Same sex.

This is a civil rights matter. We don't need a compelling state interest in order to EXPAND civil rights, only to CONTRACT them.

Oh wait, isn't marriage a contract? In order for it to be recognized federally, by the SCOTUS, you do need a compelling state interest....DUH!

We don't have a civil right to cocaine

We all have a civil right to booze and cigarettes, so what makes cocaine different?

You mean the 14th Amendment, and no it doesn't.

Oh wait, then how come all those gay people have never been federally recognized as a "Suspect" class?

Just like straight kids have sex, that doesn't mean we allow them to get married. This is completely off point.

Completely the point: not all sex, heterosexual or otherwise, happens between consenting adults.

Wrong. Find me homosexuality in the DSM-IV. If you can't, it can't be a diagnosis.

But, homosexuality can still be diagnosed as a mental illness provided a person feels distress.

The rest of your dribble about animals and pedophiles can only be logical if you can answer my questions, which AS ALWAYS, you haven't done...

We are full of ourselves aren't we? I hadn't answered yet, because I hadn't seen you'd responded at all.

Why doesn't HETEROSEXUAL marriage lead to any of those things? Especially polygamy, seeing as that tends to come from patriarchal societies that are vehemently anti-gay and engaged in only in a heterosexual manner.

A lot of societies were lenient towards homosexuality, but currently I can't think of one society that has every recognized gay marriage.

Why would changing the gender of one party in a contract lead to the repeal of the laws banning beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia...???

Because other groups can use the same slogans to bagger their way in, same as gays. Oh, and gays will of course support them, cause they know what discrimination is like.

You should know all this by now. We've been over it A LOT. And for someone who doesn't like the sound of my voice, you sure to address me a lot.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I missed class the day everyone was taught to bow to the all knowing Sarah...Or, at least think she knows everything.

ITIS,

Oh wait, isn't marriage a contract? In order for it to be recognized federally, by the SCOTUS, you do need a compelling state interest....DUH!

No, you really don't. Each and every marriage contract does not go before SCOTUS. No contracts do. Only substantive issues involving how we apply the law.

We all have a civil right to booze and cigarettes, so what makes cocaine different?

No, we don't have a civil right to booze and cigarettes. They just aren't currently banned like cocaine. This issue is completely off point.

Oh wait, then how come all those gay people have never been federally recognized as a "Suspect" class?

You must have missed where I said GENDER.

Completely the point: not all sex, heterosexual or otherwise, happens between consenting adults.

And what does that have to do with marriage?

But, homosexuality can still be diagnosed as a mental illness provided a person feels distress.

No, it really can't. No matter how many times you assert this it doesn't change the truth. It can't.

We are full of ourselves aren't we? I hadn't answered yet, because I hadn't seen you'd responded at all.

No you haven't answered because you can't. Just like I ask you every time to answer those questions and you never do. Just like once again, YOU DIDN'T.

Because other groups can use the same slogans to bagger their way in, same as gays. Oh, and gays will of course support them, cause they know what discrimination is like.

No they can't. First, because there are ACTUAL reasons for prohibiting those. Second, because their being able to have legal capacity for informed consent is irrelevant to whether gay people marry.

Also, gay people are already legally allowed to contract, so why didn't that make contracts with animals children and appliances legal???

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I missed class the day everyone was taught to bow to the all knowing Sarah...Or, at least think she knows everything.

You obviously missed more than just that class. You're embarrassing yourself.

But, homosexuality can still be diagnosed as a mental illness provided a person feels distress.

If you convince a left-handed person that he is sinister, and so he's bad, he will feel distress too. Is it a mental illness? By the way, that's what many religious people still thought in 1960s.

Do you really want to argue about DOMA?

Article IV, Section I of the United States Constitution is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. What it boils down to is that states have to accept a judgement from different states.

What kind of judgements are they talking about? If someone gets a restraining order in Arkansas, it still applies in Idaho. If you have a driver's license in Washington, it's valid in Vermont. If you have a marriage in Michigan, it's recognized in Arizona.

Now, when Hawaii allowed gay marriage, every one else panicked. They realized that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, they HAD to recognize those marriages even if they weren't allowed in their own state! Well that didn't sit too well with them, so they passed a Federal Law. A law called the Defense of Marriage Act, which said that states can ignore the FF&C Clause when it comes to marriage.

This is the definition of unconstitutional. This federal law directly contradicts a part of the Constitution. Open and shut. If it reaches the Supreme Court, it will be declared unconstitutional (and the only reason it wouldn't reach them is if it is repealed before then). When DOMA is shot down, states will have to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule here, but it doesn't matter. It's only a matter of time. It's like a game of Pac-Man. No matter how smart the same sex marriage opposition plays, they can't win. They can only delay (or I guess they could just "rage-quit" by removing every single government benefit that comes with being married. If the government completely removed themselves from marriages, that would do the trick).

Game over. We won. Public opinion will side more and more over time with same sex marriage. Courts will side more and more against banning same sex marriage. Move on from this silly fight, and if you don't want your relatives to look at you 50 years from now like we look at people who opposed interracial marriage, I suggest you reexamine your position.

Some will say that there is no procreation in a gay marriage. That simply isn't true. Take the case of Iron Chef Cat Cora. She was artifically inceminated and has given birth. Her lover also had a child. Gay people are often willing to adopt children not wanted by hetrosexual couples.

Personally I don't give a rat's patootie what they do unless it directly affects me which it doesn't.

For some reason people want to be the village yenta and spend their time worrying about everybody's business but their own. I see the tabloids where some celebrity did this or that or who is now sleeping with whom. I don't care, I repeat, I DON"T CARE because it is none of my business. It is only the business of those directly involved and no one else. If we pay have as much attention and give have the energy we have toward the so called misbehavior of others to ourselves we'd all be better off.

For those "church lady" types (1) mind your own business, (2) get another hobby and stop making the lives of others your hobby. I heard once that we should not judge lest we be judged so to condemn such behaviors not harmful to us or society is judging others and those doing so should, themselves, expect judgement which may, in fact, lead to punishment worse than they could ever imagine.

ItIsWhatItIs

We all have a civil right to booze and cigarettes, so what makes cocaine different?

Did you seriously just say that we have a "civil right" to booze and cigarettes? A "CIVIL RIGHT"?

Do you even know what that word means?

But, homosexuality can still be diagnosed as a mental illness provided a person feels distress.

So anything that may cause "distress" can be considered a mental illness? Are you serious?

Some parents feel "distress" over their children... I guess we can now classify children as a "mental illness", according to you.

Can you even hear yourself talk?

Sarah is right, you are embarrassing yourself.

Some of you people are in denial. And I don't mean that as a jab. We all are at one time or another. Here's the truth: All of our actions/beliefs start with a thought in our mind. Remember that as I continue. There is a spiritual war going on as we speak. There is Satan and there is God. They both have angels (satan's are called demons) satan has free reign on the world for a while. He and his demons whisper anything thay can in our minds (which we think are our own thoughts) to keep us away from God and all that is righteous and holy. You either live for the world (satan's) or you live for God. The Bible (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (God) is what and who shows us how to live for God. It's your choice people~ do you want Satan controlling your mind or do you want to live how we were created to live? Homosexuality is what Satan wants you to believe is okay & right, all the way to losing your soul to him. This world is temporary, we choose where we will spend eternity. If you don't believe in the Bible or don't think there is a heaven and a hell, then you are sadly mistaken. The Constitution was written when God was still in our government and reverenced. Now we want to keep changing it to fit and cover our desires, and now our desires have become rights. Ask yourselves, where are our desires coming from? All of these "equal rights" are for everyone but Christians, who's rights are being taken away one thing a time (prayer in school, the word Christmas,etc) but other religions are okay, as long as they condone anything people want to do. People hate authority they want to be their own god. This is being shown in the lack of respect for human life, shooting police officers, abortion ( its not that hard not to get pregnant, people, there is birth control and responsibility), etc. This is how satan controls our minds against God. God only wants good things for us and for us to love one another and help one another~ so ask yourselves why people are so against that? Please consider all of this, think about it, and be honest with yourselves.

In case anyone here is interested, here are some of the "Finding of Facts" from Perry v. Brown (ruling that overturned Prop 8 in California (I'm block quoting from the Wikipedia page and I have no idea if the links will copy over too. If you want the sources, they are linked on the Wikipedia page. Go there for the links):

• Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter. (Finding of Fact (FF) No. 19, p. 60)
• How the State defines civil marriage (FF No. 34, p. 67)
• The benefits of civil marriage (to the State and individuals). (FF #35–41, pp. 67–71)
• Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. (FF No. 43, pp. 71–72)
• Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation. (FF No. 46, p. 74)
• The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (FF No. 47, p. 76)
• Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians. (FF No. 51, p. 79)
• Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage. (FF No. 52, p. 80)
• The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from denial of marriage to same-sex couples. (FF #64–68, 77–78)
• A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. (FF No. 70, p. 95)
• Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination. (FF No. 74, p. 96)
• Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (FF No. 77, p. 101)

And in case anyone is wondering, findings of fact are related to questions of fact/questions of law. Here's a quick example of questions of fact vs law:

To illustrate the difference:

• Question of fact: Did Mr. and Mrs. Jones leave their 10-year-old child home alone with their baby for 4 days?
• Question of law: Does leaving a baby with a 10-year old child for 4 days fit the legal definition of child neglect?

Findings of fact are the answers to those questions, and in appellate courts, they are given great deference, so they're actually pretty important.

@Sarah,

No, you really don't. Each and every marriage contract does not go before SCOTUS. No contracts do. Only substantive issues involving how we apply the law.

Yes, but the issue being pushed to the Supreme court is the federal recognition of same sex marriage, unless you're of the opinion civil unions are satisfactory.

No, we don't have a civil right to booze and cigarettes. They just aren't currently banned like cocaine. This issue is completely off point.

I don't seem to remember cigarettes being banned, and I guess we've gone back to prohibition, but ok, we'll put that to one side.

You must have missed where I said GENDER.

Homosexuality isn't a gender and homosexuals are not a race of people.

And what does that have to do with marriage?

No, it really can't. No matter how many times you assert this it doesn't change the truth. It can't.

Really?

The present DSM-IV also does not list homosexuality as a mental disorder, but still has "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" as a diagnosis for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation."

Ergo, a person can still be diagnosed.

No you haven't answered because you can't. Just like I ask you every time to answer those questions and you never do.

OK.

No they can't. First, because there are ACTUAL reasons for prohibiting those. Second, because their being able to have legal capacity for informed consent is irrelevant to whether gay people marry.

Yes they can, and they're are actual reason for the prohibitions concerning homosexuality, to include disease, mental instability, and substance abuse. A majority of which you won't find in that river in Egypt or Out monthly.

Also, gay people are already legally allowed to contract, so why didn't that make contracts with animals children and appliances legal???

First, they're not illegal, just not enforceable. Also, how would one actually go about judging the mental status of an animal, in contract in the first place? So if my toaster wants a raise, can it sue me to get it? If my dog wants purina instead of kibbles and bits, does that mean I am going to court?

You obviously missed more than just that class. You're embarrassing yourself.

Keep counting them chickens.

If the federal government is still denying the same rights to same-sex couples; what difference do the states that allow the marriages make? If people are so upset over the word marriage then why not introduce domestic partnerships, where the individuals can write up contracts covering everything from responsibilities of the parties, to division of property, and custody of the children, etc. should they decide to end the partnership? Instead of using lawyers at the end, they could employ them in the beginning, while they still like the other party and there would be less need of court proceedings.

@Mguy

So anything that may cause "distress" can be considered a mental illness? Are you serious?

Where did I specifically say that? I said, homosexuality can be diagnosed as such, falling under the category of a sexual disorder not otherwise specified.

Homosexuality isn't a gender and homosexuals are not a race of people.

A woman can enter into this type of contract with a man and not with a woman. That's a gender issue.

Cheese and Rice people!

Gays should have the same rights to be miserable, nagged, accused of cheating as married folks!

And don't think for one second that they get to avoid the in-laws..Oh no! It comes with the territory! Package deal!

Be careful what you wish for......

My Ex-Mother-In-Law made the chick in the EXORCIST look like Tinkerbell.

Couple more things I want to clarify. These are the current findings of the psychological community:

• Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders.
• Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized, and this stigma can have a variety of negative consequences (e.g., Minority Stress) throughout the life span (D'Augelli & Patterson, 1995; DiPlacido, 1998; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 1995, 2003).
• Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior can occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities (Diamond, 2006; Hoburg et at., 2004; Rust, 1996; Savin-Williams, 2005).
• Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals can live satisfying lives as well as form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects (APA, 2005c; Kurdek, 2001, 2003, 2004; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).
• There are no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research that support theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma (Bell et at, 1981; Bene, 1985; Freund & Blanchard, 1983; Freund & Pinkava, 1961; Hooker, 1969; McCord et al., 1962; D.K. Peters & Cantrell, 1991; Siegelman, 1974, 1981; Townes et al., 1976)

If ANYONE on here wants to keep claiming that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disorder, you better show us some damn good peer-reviewed evidence first.

Where did I specifically say that? I said, homosexuality can be diagnosed as such, falling under the category of a sexual disorder not otherwise specified.

You said...

homosexuality can still be diagnosed as a mental illness provided a person feels distress.

See... you said it right there. You actually imply that homosexuality, the CAUSE of "distress", can be considered a mental illness, because it is the CAUSE.

Thus, ANYTHING that may CAUSE "distress", by your own definition, is considered a mental illness.

I guess I was right, you really can not hear yourself talk. You may want to get yourself checked for mental illness.

Sarah: As a person with no legal training, I do love to read the Constitution, your post were very informative. Thank you, 0

Valerie

Jesus did NOT say one word about homosexuality, NOT ONE WORD.

A group of desert nomads, who believed the earth was flat and that a man could live in the belly of a whale, wrote a couple passages about it. That means that MAN wrote it, NOT your god... MAN.

So you are following the instructions of MAN... who, according to your own religion, is inherently flawed and a sinner. So YOU are following the instructions of sinners.

think about it, and be honest with yourselves.

Oh, and your precious god that supposedly loves everyone is not so loving.

According to YOU, and people like you, the only way to get into heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. You ALSO believe that god put everyone on this earth for a reason, and that God loves all his children... right?

So why would your "loving god" put his own children on the earth, in a time a place, where he knew they would never hear about Jesus and thus not be able to accept Jesus as their lord and savior?

Your "all-knowing" god put native Americans on this planet, BEFORE the word of Jesus crossed the ocean. Your god knew that his children would NEVER hear about Jesus in their life, NEVER have the ability to accept him, and (according to you) NEVER get the opportunity to be saved. Your god did the same thing to billions of people who never even had the choice to accept your savior.

So why would a "loving god" put his own "children" in a time and place where they would never be saved, and thus doom them all. He knew they would never have a chance to accept Jesus, and yet he still put them on this earth. What kind of "love" is that?

think about it, and be honest with yourselves.

Sarah-3043284, #1.121- Oh, I see. Thank you for clarifying for me. Now, really, aren't you talking about a whole new (as opposed to traditional) relationship status, anyway? I saw on another post of yours a reference to "Expansion". Isn't this issue, or wouldn't this issue be better and more appropriately served a lot along the lines of "expanding" Civil Unions, rather than undoing and "contracting" the "relationship status" of Marriage as it's "traditionally" known? There is a lot of what you said about what you would have to do that smacks a little of not wanting to do that, and follow protocol, if you will; and just get to the end by the quickest means, regardless of a lot of "distinctive basis", like relationship status, as just one example. It seems almost like too much of a narrowly cited "flimsy loophole mentality" that's driving the argument. (No offense, please)

I'm starting to get distracted by late-dinner goings on now but will try and check back again. I still have another post about the Gay Therapy Ban in CA that I've left hanging and have to try and get back to, too.

To MGUY 478

Before Jesus came on earth, people could have a relationship with God, but chose not to. We all were born with a spirit that has a sense of God as who created us and everything around us. You are totally missing the point why Jesus came and died for us. There are places all through the Bible that states homosexuality is a perversion (Romans chapter 1)~ but I doubt if you have a Bible or would believe anything in it anyway. I can see by your comments you hate God, so it doesn't matter what I say, you are stuck in your own denial. I'll pray for you.

Alan, really? This is your rebuttal?

And Siobhan: Your logic is just plain STUPID. Congratulations

Next will you call me a poopy head? If that's what you have to resort to, I'll just assume it's because you have no real argument. Congratulations.

Whatisit:

You can reframe it however you want to try to defend your point. It doesn't change the fact that I, as a woman, do not have the same rights as a man insofar as who I marry. So, no matter how you cut it, it's discrimination. You can try to split hairs, reframe and so forth. But it doesn't change blatant facts.

It also doesn't change the fact that the act of sexual behavior with a child is known to have extremely harmful psychological and emotional effects on a child. The act itself provides direct harm to one of the people involved. The same cannot be said for homosexual behavior. And every example of indirect harm that could potentially occur (sexual abuse, coercion, and STDs) are all also true of heterosexual behavior. Assuming we aren't going to call heterosexual behavior a psychological disorder, you can't really use that criteria to call homosexual behavior a psychological disorder. And "distress" is not the only criteria for a psychological disorder, particularly when it's distress brought on by public marginalization, bullying and exclusion. If that were the case, then are we going to call being a racial minority a psychological disorder? After all, many racial minorities feel distressed because of how they are treated by society.

Just like the "gay marriage will lead to people marrying children" is a slippery slope so is "not considering homosexuality a psychological disorder will mean eventually we won't consider pedophilia to be a disorder." There are specific criteria that a constellation of psychological feelings and behaviors have to meet before they can be considered a disorder. Those same criteria have existed before homosexuality was even removed from the DSM. Converging evidence from many, many studies all over the world showed that homosexuality did not in fact meet the criteria of a disorder, thus they removed it. Even more studies show that pedophilia does in fact meet the criteria of a psychological disorder. Which places them in two entirely separate categories and thus claiming one necessitates the other is.. what? A slippery slope.

What becomes increasingly clear is that if all you have to rely on for your argument against something is slippery slopes, logical fallacies and false evidence, well -- then it's clear that there just is no real argument there. You can continue arm-waving, but anyone who is actually interested in facts rather than emotional responses and ingrained prejudices knows to be wary of the slippery slope arguments and debunked evidence that is put forward by the anti-GLBT crowd.

This is why the right is falling out of existence, they can't find enough people to hate and deny then the right they have.

Traditional marriage, what the F does that even mean ? If you are talking about the 20 years, there is no traditional marriages, because half of them are failures, so it's nearly a dead even split.

It's all Christian BS, it one thing to care if you are being the person who doesn't have rights others have, it's quite another to go out of your way way to deny people those rights when it effects you in no meaningful way.

But Christians do what they always do, hid behind a god that they don't even respect enough do to what it says is a sin, believe they know what it wants. Homosexuals are committing a sin, doesn't actually say that in the Bible it just says man should not lay down with another man. It would be nice it those idiots actually cared about sinning.

Rumor has it that god actually had commandments for people and that he created them separate from the Bible so there would be no confuion as to what sins were they most important.

• Why aren't you idiots aren't there making laws against working on the sabbath, nope that would cut into shoe shopping, or getting drunk watching football, or taking the family to Applebees. Believe it or not, those activies require other people to break a commandment.
• Why does every single church have graven imagines of god and/or the heavens.
• Why isn't the Mormon church spending millions getting legislation passed in California for people who take the lords name in vain, but more importantly why are they doing it ?
• Adultery ? I guarantee every Christian on the plant knows more adulterers then gay people. Yeah, and there about a 30% chance they are one.
• False witness, every single person on the planet has lied.
• And lastly, coveting they neighbors junk. That is the foundation of capitalism, wanting what others have more.

That is 6 of 10 commands by god to Christians that doesn't really ruffle anyone's feathers, yet they want us to believe a little off hand comment about man sleeping with man somehow trumps the 10 specific commands god gave his people.

They pick and choose and what parts of the bible they want to follow, which means they are deciding what is a sin worthy of protest, not god, he laid out the worst sins, even calling them commandments. But these god loving, bible thumping Christians can't be bothered to focus on them, no their hate is so deep and so strong, they go after what they perceive as a greater sin. In other words, they are using the religion to promote their own agenda, if they gave a F about god, they would focus on the direct commands from god as much, if not more than any other words in the Bible that were actually written by man.

This is why the number of people who call them selves Christians is shrinking. They can't even be bothered to follow the 10 rules god specifically singled out for them to follow. They are too busy digging through the Bible for off-handed comments that will validate they hatred they already had. And if they can't find, they just make it up. Seems to me like an all knowing being might have had the insight to mention abortion or masturbation or the other 5 million made up sins that can't be found in the bible, but we are told by man are sins. Also seems to me like this all powerful being should be the one passing judgment and doling out punishment. Otherwise we might might have charlatans running around pretending to know what god wants and innocent people suffering for something god stated no one couldn't possibly know, and anyone claiming to is a liar an committing a sin.

But we never hear about the endless sins they commit, those are dated, irrelevant in this day and age, they will tell us which ones and important to care about and which ones we can blow off. And miraculously, they match up to exactly what they believe. What luck they have.

FYI, some real gems from the Bible, they forgot to mention in bible study:

• Stone disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
• 1 Timothy 2:15 says only women who have children will be spared hell
• Men are worth more than women - Leviticus 27:1-7 actually provides dollar comparisons!
• Men aren't allowed to trim their beards or shave their heads (Leviticus 21:5)
• Prostitution is punished by burning the woman alive according to Leviticus 21:9
• Exodus 21:7-10 says men can sell their daughters into slavery
• Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
• If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28
• Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. Ezekiel 9:5
• When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:7
• Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock. Psalm 137:9

If your rationalization for hating homosexuals is the one Leviticus verse, then you you should also believe each and every verse or your are allowing your are guilty of interpreting what god wants, If you are a rational human being, you may realize a 2000 year old book written by men who lived in caves, just might be a reflection of the those times and doesn't really apply, to modern times at the verse level.

today, following the Bible word for word, like the idiot brigade is doing with homosexuals, will get you thrown in prison, and rightfully so, for the rest of your life if your lucky. Most of those crimes are capital offense and would surely qualify for a death sentence and would sicken anyone with a lick of sense.

This is the from the book they think we should all live by, that every word is god's word. Not sure what is worse, thinking this is crap is worthy of praise or worshiping a being I believe is behind those sentiments.

Sarah - I knew this article was going to bring out the crazies and I am reassured that you are always here to lay out the facts and provide the truth. I just wish someone would please answer the question, "HOW DOES SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATEN YOU?" and please don't quote the bible - not a valid argument or answer to the question.

I have been with my wife for 37 years and counting, through all the good times and the bad, the one constant thing that holds me together is knowing she's with me all the way.

My kids are grown and gone so all we have is each other, even when I'm mad at her or she at me, through the night I still love the feel of her warm body touching mine.

I don't know if same sex marriage is right or wrong, all I know for sure is, I have more important things to worry about than two strangers of the same sex in love with each other.

Two people in love with each other and want to spend the rest of their life together, who am I to tell people I don't know and most likely will never meet that they can't because I think their union is wrong?? Who gave any one of us the authority to say what's right or wrong and how other people live their lives?

A man wants to marry another man, a woman wants to marry another woman

(1) why does anybody else care?

(2) who are they hurting?

(3) what stranger is allowed to tell you how to live your life?

(4) it's their life, leave them alone

The problem is, the more logical, the quicker the wingnuts stop reading and running for the hills... or their guns! But, thanks for the great effort, man.

Not a lot of sense arguing here. Same sex marriage bans will be deemed unconstitutional. It won't affect me in the least............well.........take that back......I guess I'll have more weddings to go to, but who doesn't love a good party?

John Adams said the constitution is for a moral and upright people.

So, the real question is: is sodomy moral?

Sodomy violates the purpose of an anus and colon.

Sarah ...

Wrong. Find me homosexuality in the DSM-IV. If you can't, it can't be a diagnosis

You are so correct! I deal with the DSM-IV in my line of work and nope, it's not a diagnosis. For all of you thinking that gay people can change their sexual orientation, well think about it, could you change yours?

I've have and had so many gay friends that live wonderful lives as parents and partners. They enrich my life by knowing me and embracing me in theirs.

I'm Christian. I follow the teachings of Christ. I love my country and those that reside in it. Be they gay, straight, trans, bi, black, white, etc., we all deserve respect and love.

And we all deserve the same rights under our Constitution.

Lawyers are all for legalization of gay marriage, because it leads to gay divorce. I can see it now, in the division of assets one lesbian asks for all of the strap-on fake penises.

To each their own.Personally if they want marry that's fine.If A church won't marry them then that is the church's choice.If PIGOTRY wants to marry another pig and start a litter that's cool too.After that,who knows?crossbreeding?hybreds.the list is endless.

The Supreme Court may strike same sex marriage down and a lot of people will celebrate without realizing that it means absolutely nothing to them. All of these people are riled up for what? If this man marry another man I won't be able to pay my bills? If two women get married I'm going to be evicted??

Trust me, if two men or two women get married, nothing is going to happen to you, so why does this issue bother so many people??

i know it does'nt bother me except when i get tired of listening to all the whining on all sides.Heck for any matter you can marry sheep or dogs if you want to i don't care.I am sure there are a few of you out there that would too.Let's make incest,beastiality and poligamy legal too,make everyone happy.It does'nt really matter.All drugs can be legal too for that matter.It does'nt matter,thin the herd out.So with all that in mind people..go for it but,don't expect any special treatment or consideration from anybody.

Bubblegum

madd-dawg17 - Now, when Hawaii allowed gay marriage, every one else panicked. They realized that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, they HAD to recognize those marriages even if they weren't allowed in their own state! Well that didn't sit too well with them, so they passed a Federal Law. A law called the Defense of Marriage Act, which said that states can ignore the FF&C Clause when it comes to marriage. This is the definition of unconstitutional. This federal law directly contradicts a part of the Constitution.

Just a clarification to your comment - there's a public policy exception to DOMA which derives from a 1939 case, which says that states have no obligation under FF&C to recognize out of state contracts which substantively conflict with their own statutes. Otherwise the Loving v Virginia ruling wouldn't have been necessary for Virginia to recognize an out of state mixed-race marriage. Loving was decided on equal protection grounds, not FF&C.

Thus, section 2 of DOMA is both unnecessary and very likely constitutional. It's section 3 which is blatantly unconstitutional. Overturning DOMA will result in marriage equality at the federal level but not at the state level.

Prop 8 is a different matter entirely, and it's very likely the court took the case in order to make a Loving v Virginia style ruling in order to make marriage equality the law for all the states.

Yes, but the issue being pushed to the Supreme court is the federal recognition of same sex marriage, unless you're of the opinion civil unions are satisfactory.

No. The issue here is whether the government has a compelling reason to limit civil rights dependent on the gender of a contracting party.

Homosexuality isn't a gender and homosexuals are not a race of people.

No, a gender is a gender. And to ban someone from contracting because of a gender is discrimination.

OK.

The problem here is that your entire case depends on you being able to answer those questions. You still haven't.

Yes they can, and they're are actual reason for the prohibitions concerning homosexuality, to include disease, mental instability, and substance abuse. A majority of which you won't find in that river in Egypt or Out monthly.

No there isn't. If there was, you'd be able to answer those questions and homosexuality would be listed in the DSM-IV. This is what we call the fallacy of proof by assertion. Your asserting something does not make it true. You actually have to prove this point, which you've repeatedly failed to do.

Really?

Really.

First, they're not illegal, just not enforceable. Also, how would one actually go about judging the mental status of an animal, in contract in the first place? So if my toaster wants a raise, can it sue me to get it? If my dog wants purina instead of kibbles and bits, does that mean I am going to court?

First, YES it is illegal for anyone without legal capacity for informed consent to contract. That's why dogs can't get mortgages, and gay people can. Allowing gay people to buy houses didn't lead to animals buying houses, so why would gay people getting married lead to animals getting married?That's why your dog doesn't get a say in what food you buy. You're actually proving my point with your illogical analogies.

Let's have some fun. We'll post links with some free girl-on-girl porn and watch the bible-thumpers go running off to watch (come on, you know they won't be able to resist!) Then we can all have a sane, rational conversation. Although, not about this. This is pretty cut-and-dry. It's unconstitutional, it'll be overturned, the end.

.

KC Connor-26 ...

It's unconstitutional, it'll be overturned, the end.

Did you read the article? Do you read? Why do you think SCOTUS is reviewing this? It's about States making same-sex marriage viable and reviewing whether or not the Feds should uphold the State's ruling. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about marriage only being defined as that between a man and a woman.

Layton-3733410

I think you misunderstood me. DOMA is unconstitutional and will be overturned. Once that's done, the states will have to recognize it as well.

Wow...talk about a hotbed of comments. Who lives in a state where homosexual marriage is legal?...I do. I have found many things to be blatantly interesting in living here. #1 - NOT all homosexuals Want to get married. #2 When they get married they do get divorced as well. It is a sad thing too, just like all divorce. #3 - The divorce rate of people who live in states that have gay marriage are lower than those who don't. #4 - Not all homosexual couples want kids, just as not all heterosexual couples want kids (I have 2 uncles and 1 aunt who will never have children and don't want them). #5 - Do not bring the bible into this, I am a Christian (and not the only Christian that believes the same as me) and even I believe 2 and I mean 2 ADULTS (over the age of consent), should have the right to get married. Being Male/Female; Male/Male and Female/Female. Oh, and for all of you who think I am a "bible thump-er" One of my children has a Godmother who is homosexual and the other is in a partnership - female/female who are Godmothers (They live in a state where they can't get married). They are wonderful "Aunts" and Love my children dearly. Their Love has NOTHING to do with their homosexuality and it has nothing to do with me calling them my sisters. I Love them dearly.

However, it should be up to the states. I happen to be in a state that has homosexual marriage available and legal and I have not noticed ONE difference in my life. I am happy if people marry for love...that is the only universal thing that should be about marriage. Who cares about marriage benefits - I didn't get married for marriage benefits. BTW, when I was in a class (this class took months) for people wanting to adopt, their were 2 female couples who wanted to adopt children (This was many years ago and homosexual marriage was not legal the the time - only in Vermont). I spent many classes with them, talked with them and got to know them and I would have happily let them adopt any of the children looking for FOREVER homes.

What a complete waste of tax payers money and time, I can't think of anything so demoralizing and retarded at the same time..

Why don't you people go and shack up like I did when I was young..life was great back then no one bothered anyone, its awonder why things go wrong in the country now with this type of propaganda, poor timing to.

What is Freedom ? Freedom is other people being allowed to do the things you hate no matter what you think or say because it's none of your business. But you also get to do the things they hate so it evens out.

emilymdare - However, it should be up to the states.

Should the question of mixed-race marriage also be left to the states?

If not, why not? Aren't the same equal protection issues involved?

Skrekk...

I understand where you are coming from. In High school (Chicago) - I took Black American History classes. However, I am not talking about inter-racial marriage. I am talking about homosexual marriage. Two different issues. AND if you were to read my post, I know both should be legal...period! So quit mixing the messages. This is not the 60's and we are not talking about RACE (Have you seen "Eyes on the prize" - I have!) We are talking about 2 people (of the same sex not race) getting married. My state voted for it and I am proud to live in a state that allows it...End of discussion!

emilymdare - However, I am not talking about inter-racial marriage. I am talking about homosexual marriage. Two different issues.

They represent the exact same federal equal protection issue under the 5th & 14th Amendments.

So I'll ask again - why do you think one can be denied by the states but not the other?

MagnoliaSimms

You're welcome to dislike gay marriage. You don't have to have one. You don't have to attend one. Your church won't be required to perform one. You can go on disliking it all you want. But everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose (as long as that person is a consenting adult). I strongly disagree with your point of view, but it is your right to have it. However, tolerance is not about agreeing with you, or having to tolerate laws that discriminate against people. I don't agree with DOMA because it excludes part of our nation's population from having the same rights that you and I enjoy.

Its not as simple as having same rights. By law, no matter how you view this topic, they have the same right as i do. BY law I can marry someone of the opposite sex and so do they. No where does law or traditional marriage say marriage is between just 2 things that love each other. If that is the case then anyone and everyone can marry anything. This is about the definition of marriage, and Gods view on it.

Now people may say well, leave God out of it, this isnt the place for it, or dont view this topic bringing God into it. How can a person who is a Christian do that ? Especially living in a Country whose principles used to be Christian values, but are diminishing over the years. Asking me to view this any other way, would be like asking say a black person not to think they are black, when asked how they feel about racial slavery.

You could say how does someone marrying in some other state affect my marriage here. I could say how does the murdering of someone in some other state affect me either, but Murder is morally wrong because God said Murder is wrong. Not us, we didnt decide that. Our founding fathers were deep men of faith, and had their strong beliefs in God. So of course I have the same mind set as them, and seeing life through Christian values.

Here is a clip wrote by matt slick.

President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988. He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet.

-----------------------------

The redefinition of marriage away from the public promissory bond of a man and woman affects society as a whole, since society is based on the family unit in which marriage is the legal contract of fidelity and commitment through which children are brought into the world. By redefining marriage away from a man and a woman, where normal physical sexual intercourse can occur, the absolutes of male female marriage relationships are broken down and sexual permissiveness is encouraged. This opens the door to further redefinitions of familial and sexual relationships. Take, for example, the 2011 symposium "Living in Truth and Dignity" in Baltimore, Maryland on August 17. In it, pedophilia was redefined as "minor attracted persons," and the symposium sought to raise concerns about how the DSM1 considers it a mental disorder.

At the symposium, one of the lectures was titled "Decriminalizing Mental Disorder Concepts - Pedophilia as an Example." It was presented by John Z. Sadler, M.D., Prof. of medical ethics and psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Ctr., Dallas, TX.2

Is this a precursor of more sexual "reconsiderations" in a changing world where sexual permissiveness in the form of homosexual behavior now seeks acceptability by redefining marriage so it can hide within its sacred halls and gain acceptability? We have to ask if such a symposium would have gained traction if the fidelity of traditional marriage had remained intact, and along with it the sanctity of sexuality that marriage provides. I can't see how. With the redefining of sexual roles and marriage partners, the dike that holds back the immoral deluge is cracking.

When the door to marriage redefinition is opened, a host of sexual moral obscenities can slip in. When and how do we close the door again? After pedophilia is accepted by society? What about polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory? Without a definite statement that marriage is between a man and a woman, and with it the natural biologically designed sexual union that is guarded within marriage, then anything goes -- pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, gender identity, and more. Philosophically, this can have profound moral ramifications for society, and when morals change society changes and everyone within it is affected.

As history too often demonstrates, when a society's morality frays the wicked prosper and they soon turn their attention to the morally conservative and persecute them. This is already occurring here in America where people who dare express contrary opinions to the politically correct view of homosexual marriage are fired from jobs, ridiculed, and/or called bigots

------------------------------

So my point is like theirs. When you redefine marriage it does open the doors to it being redefined again. Just as people in the 50's 60's would never , ever have thought we would be having this discussion today. So as times change, peoples views change and everything is being redefined. I am in support for traditional Family values, because that is what is best for america.

Matthew-2771918

Marmaduke49 - the federal government has already "stuck its nose in state affairs" regarding marriage. What part of "thousand of federal benefits for married couples did you miss? Or the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia?

Further sir, your logic is flawed. Same-sex marriage couples will NOT negatively impact opposite-marriage intercourse and the procreation of children. First, not all opposite-sex relationships produce children. Second, some same sex couples I know have children (surrogacy or artificial insemination).

Lastly sir, I'd like to see the source for your statistical statement. Thank you.

Loving vs Virginia based off of the 14th amendment Section 1 . Gays , by law, have the same right as I do, and that is to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course its not their preference !! You dont think I know that ? But my point is, their right, is the same as mine, and that is to marry someone of the opposite sex. You could say , its all about who you love. That would be a poor view, because isnt not defined as love, its defined as one man, one woman before God. But you want to redefine marriage, and I am opposed to such thought. I dont deny any person loving another person. I am not opposed to gay people loving each other, or having their own unions, or even the Government recognizing their unions. But to take marriage and try to redefine it is something I am opposed to.

Also you are right, not all marriages are to produce children. Obviously some cant, or some dont want to, and that is fine, but the majority do have kids, and those traditional family values are to be held true.

If you need statistics, just Google anything that has to do with gay lifestyle and younger deather rates, higher suicides, higher everything.

@ Marmaduke49

How was I even in the least bit taking away your ability to have an opinion? I do respect your right to have an opinion differing from mine. But I don't by any means have to respect the opinion. I have yet to hear a single logical response to why gay people can't get married that doesn't involve religion. Which by the way, to all you Jesus Freaks out there, you people amaze me with your ability to rationalize your god into every possible situation. I'm going to let you all in on a little secret: People wrote the bible and have used it to control the masses for thousands of years. People are scared of the idea of not existing and the idea of their dead relatives not existing any longer so they will cling to anything that makes that fear go away. I have no problem with this and I actually think that it is kind of beautiful in a way and that it is totally rational for people to want that. However, when you start using your happy place to trample on the happiness of others, it has went entirely too far. It is way easier to succumb to the idea of darkness after death if you just drink more legalize weed.

Why should a person be scared of not existing ? I wouldnt have any worries any more what so ever :D Being snuffed out like a light doesnt scare me any more if there was or wasnt a God. If you all are right and I am wrong, none of us will even know to recognize such since we will be gone. If I am right, then I am going to make sure I will be spending eternity in a place with God.

It goes deeper then Just some words written in a book. Its about the loving relationship between a Father and child. Its about the prophecy of a savior coming and it being fulfilled. Had the Bible just been a book written with no other data to back it up, no witnesses, no nothing, then yes, I would reject it myself. Since it can hold its water in truth, and could stand up in a court in its worthiness, then I trust it completely and also the love I feel from God is authentic. People may use the bible for some type of control, but those are the ones I would recognize as false teachers, prophets, cult occult religions. If anything it teaches about being freed from the bonds of sin. Society now is no different some society of the past. People then were skeptical, and rejected, so i expect to see such today.

I am glad we are different, its a daily reminder to know that we all have free will to choose what we want.

KC Connor-26

I think you misunderstood me.

That I did and I apologize. Peace.

Totally agree with you Lizon. Everyone should experience the horrors of marriage! Only after everyone experiences marriage, we can ban it...

As George Carlin would say: "Marriage license, just another worthless piece of paper from the state!"

Have a good day everyone and HAPPY FRIDAY!!!! :-)

Gay marriage should mean an end to gay sex. At least that's the way it works for heterosexuals.

Maybe the gays will be more successful at it. You never know until you let them try!

sam, that was funny!

Lawyers should be happy. Gay marriage also bring about gay divorces! :)

The human dynamics of it is that gay or straight doesn't matter. It is about people and their love toward one another and how they treat one another. Whether homosexual or heterosexual a marriage can be great or lousy. Obviously Lizon isn't in a happy relationship. Too bad. Divorce lawers will only see an increase in business because of an increase in the number of married couples. The genders of the couples is irrelevant. Gay people can live and love like hetrosexuals they can also hate and separate just like heterosexuals.

@Adler-273784

*woosh*

That's the sound of the joke going way over your head.

I am beginning to see an alarming trend in these posts. The NOM's of the board are starting to get scared that the federal government is going to set precedent and allow same sex marriage. Now the scream of "state's rights" is starting to build. But I hate to have to be the one to point this out, no state has the right to deny rights to a group of people that the federal government says cannot be discriminated against.

Read the article from earlier today. It might surprise you.

Wow-3058090 they said that being gay is not a choice, but indulging in homosexuality is still a sin.

No, you won't really be surprised. The Mormons said that homosexuality is not choice, but it's still a sin to have gay sex or marry someone of the same sex.

Gee....they're SO tolerant now.

That leave gay people really only one option: the Catholic priesthood.

Yea I know. But it was a long way from the previous stance. Just as the SC may change their view. It is a step in the right direction.

That didn't surprise anyone?

I was.

Wow-3058090 - But it was a long way from the previous stance.

So they've admitted what medical science has known for at least 50 years, but still fund anti-gay hate groups and still oppose equal rights for gays.

I guess that's progress of a sort.

Well given that SLC, UT has a high percentage of LGBT individuals, I would say its more of a self-preservation response than anything else. The Mormon Church has incredible power over the state legislature, and if they start losing that control due to alienation of LGBT members, well they perceive that as very bad.

Skrekk - So they've admitted what medical science has known for at least 50 years, but still fund anti-gay hate groups and still oppose equal rights for gays.

I guess that's progress of a sort.

Maybe they'll take a different stance eventually? I hope so. Don't know what hate groups they fund but maybe they are changing. It would be nice to think people can change their views on the subject, kind of like the current President did. However small, it's a step forward.

And to quote The Book of Mormon (the musical, that is), "I believe that god changed his mind about black people in 1978."

Baby steps...

Wow-3058090 - Don't know what hate groups they fund but maybe they are changing.

The LDS church is still one of the main supporters of the NOM anti-gay hate group (along with the Catholic church). They've also been one of the main backers of every ban on gay marriage in the US, and fought every single attempt at equality - from Hawaii in 1996 to Prop h8 in 2008, to Illinois today.

The people can't vote on rights.

The law is unconstitutional.

sorry, meant to reply to a post up there ^

.

Well you know the GOP has to watch out for those gay terrorists; they might just get too darn happy!

Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, which used to be illegal, but he still won't "get it", because he's an idiot.

Pinto, there are only 4 votes against marriage equality since Kennedy wrote the two key precedents in favor of gay rights.

And if Scalia believes in precedent he'll support it, and maybe Roberts too.

Remember the federal courts where DOMA was deemed unconstitutional was passed by Republican appointed judges.