Supreme Courts Historic Ruling Expected to Lead to Same-Sex Marriage Again ...

Gay marriage ruling raises questions on benefits : Photo Gallery

In Missouri, same-sex marriage ruling raises legal questions ... In Missouri, same-sex marriage ruling raises legal questions ... In Missouri, same-sex marriage ruling raises legal questions	Supreme Court gay-marriage rulings: Anything but simple Supreme Court gay-marriage rulings: Anything but simple Supreme Court gay-marriage rulings: Anything but simple	Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question - Bloomberg Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question - Bloomberg Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question - Bloomberg	pt_1479_8922_o.jpg?t=1372259482 pt_1479_8922_o.jpg?t=1372259482 pt_1479_8922_o.jpg?t=1372259482
Ruling opens door to gay marriage | court, marriage, ruling - News ... Ruling opens door to gay marriage | court, marriage, ruling - News ... Ruling opens door to gay marriage | court, marriage, ruling - News	pt_1479_13257_o.jpg?t=1372264926 pt_1479_13257_o.jpg?t=1372264926 pt_1479_13257_o.jpg?t=1372264926	Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for	Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for
Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for	Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for	Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question - Bloomberg Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question - Bloomberg Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question - Bloomberg	Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional - Nation - The Boston Globe Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional - Nation - The Boston Globe Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional - Nation - The Boston Globe
Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriages, benefits | Marine ... Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriages, benefits | Marine ... Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriages, benefits | Marine	Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional - Nation - The Boston Globe Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional - Nation - The Boston Globe Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional - Nation - The Boston Globe	News :: ACLU of New Jersey News :: ACLU of New Jersey News :: ACLU of New Jersey	Reaction mixed to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage - Lebanon ... Reaction mixed to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage - Lebanon ... Reaction mixed to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage - Lebanon
A Big Day For Gay In U.S. History. And, Sen. Wendy Davis Is A Freakin Star. A Big Day For Gay In U.S. History. And, Sen. Wendy Davis Is A Freakin Star. A Big Day For Gay In U.S. History. And, Sen. Wendy Davis Is A Freakin Star.	Let elderly people hurry up and die, says Taro Aso, Japanese minister Let elderly people hurry up and die, says Taro Aso, Japanese minister Let elderly people hurry up and die, says Taro Aso, Japanese minister	Moving Forward Not Barack with Mittrack Obomney Moving Forward Not Barack with Mittrack Obomney Moving Forward Not Barack with Mittrack Obomney	The Mittnocchio Baracknocchio Presidential Debates The Mittnocchio Baracknocchio Presidential Debates The Mittnocchio Baracknocchio Presidential Debates
Gary Ashcraft Gary Ashcraft Gary Ashcraft	Senator Harry Reid (D) Nevada Senator Harry Reid (D) Nevada Senator Harry Reid (D) Nevada	GAY MARRIAGE RULING RAISES QUESTIONS ON BENEFITS GAY MARRIAGE RULING RAISES QUESTIONS ON BENEFITS The Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act raises a number of questions on who in a gay couple is eligible for which federal benefits, ranging from taxes to health care. A person's eligibility for benefits will depend, in some ...	Utahns react with questions: What happens next? Utahns react with questions: What happens next? Swallow said the DOMA decision allows people in states that allow same-sex marriage to apply for federal benefits, but the ruling did not address that issue for states that do not. "We're really left to our own argument and our own legal analysis on ...
Supreme Court's Historic Ruling Expected to Lead to Same-Sex Marriage Again ... Supreme Court's Historic Ruling Expected to Lead to Same-Sex Marriage Again ... There is now expectation that same-sex marriages will resume in the state, although there may be further litigation that could delay the nuptials and raise questions on whether licenses can still be denied to same-sex couples in certain counties. After ...	Court ruling opens door to Calif. gay marriage Court ruling opens door to Calif. gay marriage In addressing California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages, the court's 5-4 decision allows to stand a lower-court ruling that the initiative is unconstitutional – a ruling that also raises questions about the future of the state's initiative ...	Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings The ruling will immediately extend many benefits to couples married in the states that allow such unions, and it will allow the Obama administration to broaden other benefits through executive actions. The case concerning California's ban on same-sex ...	Top court elevates same-sex marriage Top court elevates same-sex marriage WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court overturned a nearly two-decade-old federal law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, a landmark decision on Wednesday that qualifies gay couples for federal benefits and underscores a rapid shift in ...
Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban ... Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban ... DOMA's "demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law," the majority ruled. "This raises a most serious question under the ...	Gay Marriage Advocates Anticipate Return To Supreme Court After Ruling Gay Marriage Advocates Anticipate Return To Supreme Court After Ruling Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council said the court ruling on federal recognition "raises as many questions as it answers." "Will recognition be based on the law in the state where the marriage was celebrated or the ... The National ...	Mixed Reaction in Middle Georgia to Same-Sex Marriage Rulings Mixed Reaction in Middle Georgia to Same-Sex Marriage Rulings "Those purposes might be limited depending on what the federal benefit is if they're living in a state like Georgia that doesn't recognize marriage, that raises a question when the state where the couple married and the state where they live don't have ...	Supreme Court gives big boost to same-sex marriage Supreme Court gives big boost to same-sex marriage The California decision will raise to 30% the percentage of Americans living in states with legalized gay marriage. But 36 states still ban same-sex marriage, and the high court's ruling doesn't extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians elsewhere.
Maryland Reaction to Supreme Court decisions on marriage Maryland Reaction to Supreme Court decisions on marriage TODAY'S RULING RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE EMPLOYERS WILL DO ABOUT DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS FOR GAY COUPLES WHO MAY NOT WANT TO GET MARRIED NOW THAT FEDERAL BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ...	Reaction mixed to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage Reaction mixed to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage Updated: 06/26/2013 10:09:35 PM EDT. Brad Martin said he cried "tears of joy" when he heard the news that the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples. "This means the world to ...	Supreme Court ruling 'doesn't change a thing,' same-sex marriage opponents in ... Supreme Court ruling 'doesn't change a thing,' same-sex marriage opponents in ... Shanker, a Bethlehem resident, said the DOMA ruling may extend federal benefits to gay and lesbian Pennsylvania couples who were married in other states. That group includes him and his husband, Brandon Pariser, who were married in April in ...	Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage hailed as historic victory Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage hailed as historic victory (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court nudged the nation toward broad recognition of same-sex marriage on Wednesday in rulings that advocates hailed as a "joyous occasion" -- but still left many questions unanswered. Voting 5-4 in each of two ...
Gays given expansion of rights in 5-4 ruling by Supreme Court Gays given expansion of rights in 5-4 ruling by Supreme Court WASHINGTON – Gay Americans won their greatest civil rights victory ever Wednesday, as the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing law banning federal benefits for same-sex married couples while also, in effect, restoring gay marriage in California ...	Huckabee on Supreme Court gay marriage ruling: 'Jesus wept' Huckabee on Supreme Court gay marriage ruling: 'Jesus wept' Mike Huckabee had strong words about Wednesday's rulings by the Supreme Court that cleared the way for gay marriage in California and federal benefits for married gay couples. In an email with the subject heading “5 People In Robes Are Not Bigger Than ...

Gay marriage ruling raises questions on benefits : Videos

Gay Marriage - The Not So Common Show "Obama ... Gay Marriage - The Not So Common Show "Obama ... The President emphasized the personal nature of his decision in his interview with ... In the ... Duration: 129 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Fri, 18 May 2012 11:25:09 -0700	Same Sex Marriage? - YouTube Same Sex Marriage? - YouTube Marriage is a human right, NOT a heterosexual privilege. ... and regulate it, marriage has now ... Duration: 275 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:35:10 -0700	Julian Bond responds to President Obama's ... Julian Bond responds to President Obama's ... You may or may not agree with gay marriage? but you must. admit to ... decision to go ... Duration: 137 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 10 May 2012 18:26:32 -0700	Bridgewater couple are lead plaintiffs in new same ... Bridgewater couple are lead plaintiffs in new same ... ... blocking same-sex spouses from receiving federal marriage benefits they say ... Duration: 247 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:54:31 -0700
ArmagedDOMA - YouTube ArmagedDOMA - YouTube In 2002, same sex marriage was not yet legal in Massachusetts and any possible legal remedy ... Duration: 586 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:24:35 -0700	MIKE and TULSI GABBARD" BRAINWASH BY THE ... MIKE and TULSI GABBARD" BRAINWASH BY THE ... TULSI GABBARD WHO WAS BORN AND RAISE IN THE CULT ON MANY ... MAN " AND ... Duration: 1022 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 17 May 2012 21:14:04 -0700

Gay marriage ruling raises questions on benefits : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites

Views on gay marriage?

Gay marriage....There are a lot of people for and against gay marriage.
My question is why are YOU for or against gay love and marriage? I just want to know the reason behind what you think.
I am for gay marriage totally
and it recommended this section
i just want to know why people arent for it..i dont get why people are against it

Answer: Definitely for it. Got married to my wife 11 mos ago!

Gay folks are law abiding, tax paying citizens who are dealing with the same issues with money, kids, mortgages, work/career, etc. just like everyone else. Since our Constitution doesn’t specifically give Federal gov’t the power to regulate marriage, marriage is to be regulated by each state. Yet, the Federal government also says that federal agencies will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 under President Clinton.

They should be treated as such. And currently, they are NOT.

The definition of Civil Marriage is:
- 2 (not 3 or more)
- consenting adults (which leaves out children, inanimate objects, non humans, & animals, since none can consent)
- that are not closely related per state statutes (& in 20+ states, you can be 1st cousins & still legally marry) &
- who follow the rules established by the state for marriage who want to provide for each other & make that commitment to each other.

So, saying civil marriage by gay folks will lead to those things I mentioned above is trying to instill fear.

The problem is that feds have NOT kept up their part of the marriage/union deal by honoring those couples who have met & complies with the state's definition of marriage.

There are 1130+ federal benefits of marriage identified by the General Accounting Office (GAO) which are automatically bestowed on heterosexual married couples. The following are some of the benefits the couple would use during their lives together, or if one part of the couple becomes incapacitated/dies:
• the ability to file joint income tax with the IRS
• exemption from paying federal tax on employer-provided health insurance for a spouse
• benefits for the spouse of a military veteran.
• inheritance tax exemptions on property the couple owns jointly
• social security benefits for the surviving spouse
• apply for US citizenship if you are married to a US citizen

There is NO provision for civil unions or domestic partnerships that are recognized by the state the couple resides in for LGBT OR straight couples. And our government does not recognize SSMs. So, same-sex couples legally married in those states that recognize same sex marriage (SSMs) are treated as complete strangers by the US Federal government.

We want our marriages to be treated the same way as any other marriage. No more, no less. We want to take care of our families & ensure that they are taken care of/get whatever benefits we are entitled to should we become incapacitated or die. I can't see why picking & choosing which marriage is honored, even when they BOTH are recognized by the state, helps support a stable society and promotes family stability. Gay married families aren't able to provide their family with the benefits that other married families get automatically through marriage.

If we provide benefits for MARRIAGE, treat all marriages the same. And if some folks think SSM are just about the benefits, please come up with some type of test to deny marriage to those, gay OR straight, who marry for the benefits. Whatever reason a couple gets married for is THEIR BUSINESS, be it love, stability, some type of business arrangement, whatever. Don't tell me all straight people marry to propagate the species & need tax breaks just to raise kids. You don't have to be straight or married to have/raise kids.

It is a shame that after all the trials & tribulations this country has been through with discrimination/unequal treatment of people based on religion, race/skin color, nationality, gender, veteran status, disability, or social status, we haven’t learned from past mistakes. Once again, this country is discriminating against another group of taxpaying, law abiding citizens who are contributing members to our society. 2 consenting adults REGARDLESS of sex should be allowed to marry as long as they meet their state's regulation for marriage. Yet even when they DO, our federal government STILL denies them the full benefits of marriage that are automatically bestowed on straight married couples.

Civil rights were taken away & unequal treatment of others was seen as ok by the majority. When these groups fought for their rights, they were met with strong opposition & their civil rights had to be handled by our GOVERNMENT in order for equality to prevail. If these groups waited on the support of the majority, they would still be discriminated against to this day. People don't like change & want to keep the status quo. And as long as the rights of these groups of people didn't affect the majority, the majority didn't care.

Yet here we are repeating history.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Seriously, is this freedom?

The same people who say I shouldnt impose my morality on them, are imposing immorality on me and my children to the point that I literally have a hard time even leaving my home anymore to do something as simple as visit the park. And this is freedom?

I am a Catholic stay-at-home mother of seven, and I live in the state of Massachusetts where "gay marriage" has been legal for seven years and its just one aspect of the larger secular agenda. Because we have so many little children, it takes a phenomenal effort to go anywhere. We have only filled our truck with gasoline twice this entire summer vacation. We go to Mass and we go two miles up the road to a small outdoor swimming pool. Thats pretty much it.

At the pool this summer there were homosexual couples with children and, while I was polite as my own young daughters doted on the baby with two "mommies", I also held my breath in anticipation of awkward questions - questions Im not ready to answer. My young daughters are all under the age of eight and they are not old enough to understand why a baby would have two women calling themselves "mommies".

When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldnt ask questions. They dont see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy. We havent been back to the pool for a couple of weeks, except once but it rained. The truth is, now I dont really want to go back.

So what am I harping about?

Today we decided to go to the park. We live near a nice park that is safe, clean and quiet. Two of my daughters were in the sandbox, one on the slide, the other on the swings, and as I lifted the baby out of his stroller I looked up to see four women laughing at a baby boy as he was swinging in one of those bucket baby swings. That seems harmless enough, but Im so sensitized to the strangeness in my community that Ive developed this ever-present jumpiness whenever Im in public. Sure enough, two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each others back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.

This is my community. I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. We are responsible citizens. We live by the rules, we pay our taxes, we take care of our things. Im supposed to be able to influence what goes on in my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But Im outnumbered. I cant even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy.

So now I go on a rant.

Our taxes are being used to fund contraception, abortion and IVF already. That offends me in ways that are inexpressible. I read last December in the Wall Street Journal how two men near us are raising two assembled daughters after announcing to the world how they killed two other siblings in surrogate mothers in India. Let me guess? I shouldnt offend them though, right? And whats next at the park? A needle exchange drop-box for heroin users? No joke. These things are not isolated, it is all the same issue at a fundamental level. Were being pushed to accept immorality and its not just on TV and in Washington D.C. Its right in front of us too.

We fund a lot of illegal immigrants here (just ask the President about his auntie) and helping people who really need help is not something Id ever oppose. But its still haunting me that just this week I learned of an illegal immigrant who killed a young man innocently out for a ride on his motorcycle. The illegal immigrant, who didnt have a license, was so drunk he didnt notice when he hit a motorcyclist and then dragged the 23 year old college graduate a quarter of a mile while people were yelling at him to stop. When he finally did stop, the young man was still alive until the drunk driver put the car in reverse and backed up over him before driving away. Hes charged with vehicular homicide and "reckless conduct creating a risk to a child." He had a six year old in the car with him.

Do you think knowing this happened about seven miles from my home makes me afraid to leave the house? You bet it does. But that just adds to everything else Im being asked to tolerate. Seriously, is this freedom?
9 minutes ago - 4 days left to answer.

Answer: Yes, it is. Stop being so ignorant of the people in your community and embrace the diverseness. The problem isn't that the world is happening around your children, the problem is that you can't bring yourself to open your children to different ideals like homosexuality or immigration, but instead you are going to shelter them from the real world and make them believe that there is only one way to live their lives. The problem is also that you put the blame on society for adhering to and respecting the ways that people want to live their lives, like funding abortions for people who don't think that they're ready to provide for a child, or a help program to benefit someone with a drug addiction that can't kick the habit. That is the problem. You want your children to grow up in a world where nothing goes wrong and everyone is just happy all the time. Well guess what, it's not. It never has been, and it never will be. The best thing you can do for your children is to educate them and help teach them how to make the best decisions for themselves that they can. you can't keep them from the world forever, and if they just get thrown into a situation without knowing anything about it, like drinking in high school, they could make a horrible, uneducated, and wrong decision, and end up in alot worse places than an abortion clinic.
Category: Law & Ethics

Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ...

Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for plans. By Hazel Bradford | June 26, 2013 3:53 pm. Comments. U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court decision Wednesday that allows federal recognition of same-sex ...

Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings ...

1 day ago ... The court ruled unconstitutional a 1996 law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples and effectively permitted gay marriage in California. ... The decision will raise a series of major questions for the Obama ...

Supreme Court rulings seen as landmark victories for supporters of ...

1 day ago ... One decision wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that has ... same -sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits.

Gay couples stand to receive thousands of benefits in wake of ...

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act – the law that denies more than 1000 federal benefits to same-sex married couples – may dramatically transform the legal status and financial standing of ... The reason for the Federal benefits was to help influence married couples to have children --To elevate the financial constraints and offset the thousands of dollars it cost to raise and educate a child---So while these same gays were ...

At Work; Legal Victories for Gay Workers

Gay activism has come a long way since those raucous evenings in the 1950s when a pony dancer used to jump onto the bar at a gay hangout in San Francisco and lead the crowd in choruses of "God Bless Us Nellie Queens." As the gay community prepares to celebrate its annual "pride week," which will culminate next weekend with marches in several - By BARBARA PRESLEY NOBLE

Notable Books of 1998

This list has been selected from books reviewed since the Holiday Books issue of December 1997. It is meant to suggest some of the high points in this years fiction, poetry, nonfiction, childrens books, mysteries and science fiction. The books are arranged alphabetically under genre headings. The complete reviews of these books may be found at - List of notable books of 1998; drawings (L)

Gay Marriage Rights vs Christianity?

hello, firstly i would like to say im not gay i however do support the equal rights marriage movement and believe it is something that isnt gender restricted. The church says marriage is between a man and a woman which is fair i mean its stated in the bible, but what i dont understand is various other things are listed in the bible which christian choose to ignore showing they just pick and choose what they think is right. Like the bible say you shouldnt eat shellfish, slavery is fine (not supporting but saying there is nothing wrong with it), or if a girl isnt a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned to death at her father doorstep. So if the church is willing to fight against marriage rights why arent they declaring a war on shellfish, bringing back slavery or trying to stone women who arent virgins before marriage? I see that as very morally incorrect claiming to be doing gods work when not completeing the full of what he say? (not that i want slavery or stoning of women etc etc) And ive heard that christian say the bible got these things wrong so then chances are it got something like human sexuality wrong if it cant nail what we can and cant eat? So my question is why pick and choose and why deny people of happiness?
P.s or even divorce i dont see any movement to stop divorce
sources for:
shellfish: Leviticus 11:10
stoning non virgins: Deuteronomy 22:13-21
slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46 + Exodus 21:2-6
this is also good, Deuteronomy 22:11

Answer: When you think chritians just "pick and choose" what they want to accept you show that you don't really understand christianity at all. We can't just pick and choose the bible tells us we no longer are bound by the Old Testament, any Old Testament laws that we still accept are repeated in the New. Hopefully you are now educated in this respect and will not accuse Christians of cherry picking their favourite verses, if you don't accept this then I have to write you off as a troll with no intention of learning and you only come on the site to stir up trouble.

The bible didn't get anything wrong the person whom you heard say this is misled or lying. Times change however and laws change to accommodate the changing times. We are way past the hand to mouth life and death existence that required slavery so slavery is now no longer acceptable. It might interest you to know that some of the Greek inventor Hiro of Alexandria's inventions were rejected as there were social concerns about how it would negatively impact on the slaves. Incidentally even though we don't need slaves anymore we still have slaves in the 21st century and chances are if you buy cheap clothes they were knocked up in a sweat shop run by slave labour. Do you seriously think the illegal immigrants who work those sweat shops are given medical benefits and a union and employees' rights? The bible never condones slavery but it acknowledges that it is a fact of life and deals with trying to get rights for those slaves and advices them on how to behave.

As for your main heading it isn't gay rights vs Christianity there is no conflict (or at least there shouldn't be). Homosexual people should have the right to marry, in my opinion anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they like so long as the marriage is between consenting adults (inanimate objects and animals obviously don't need to consent). However the church should have the right to refuse to perform or recognise such marriages.

Edit:

All of those sources are from the Old Covenant, have you read Hebrews?

By calling this covenant "new", he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and ageing will soon disappear.

Did you not see how even in the Old Testament dietary changes took place between the Garden of Eden (strictly vegetarian) to the Flood (meat but must be kosher) to the New Testament (Eat anything you like without raising questions of conscience), new covenant, new rules, it's not rocket science. This is very basic contract law, if a contract is nullified and a new contract drawn up in the case of a dispute the most recent contract is the one that is in force not the previous contract which is no longer binding.

The old contract wasn't nullified because it was less than perfet humans sinned and violated the contract it was we humans that broke our end of the bargain which is why a new contract (covenant) was drawn up.

There is no subjective picking and choosing the bible itself tells us clearly what laws are currently in force and what laws are no longer binding. That isn't to say there isn't a lot of hermeneutics in the interpretation and application of the bible our reading level does go beyond the "See Spot Run" level of literal interpretation but even in the hermeneutics there are rules to be followed and there must be internal consistency in the intepretation.

Edit 2.

Sorry, I forgot to address your issue of divorce, divorce is frowned upon but not forbidden in the bible. Divorce and re-marriage IS forbidden and I know a lot of churches refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for divorcees.
Category: Religion & Spirituality

What Now? Supreme Court Rulings On Same Sex Marriage Raise ...

17 hours ago ... Supreme Court Rulings On Same Sex Marriage Raise Questions About ... now), I don't think there's any benefit to taxpayers in rushing just yet.

Am I being reasonable with my future husband about our future sons circumcision? (10 points!)?

I have been dating him for amost 3 years. I love him very much but we have very different views on a few issues. I am not religious, but he is a conservative Christian and I know he is very pro-circmcision also. Everything else I can deal with. I dont mind his smoking, his ignornace on gay people choosing to be gay, and his taking of the bible literally. I think I could even compromise on us having a dog one day even though I am slightly allergic to them. Thing is, I think he is getting ready to propse to me...besides our differences we really have a great relationship. Im just wondering if you think I wuld be sounding unreasonable if I tell him something like "I love you and I would love to marry you. But I think there are a couple things we need to dicuss before getting married."

1.) If we have a son, he is NOT be circumcised unless for some reason it is absolutely medically necessary (rare!). Other than that, I would like to leave the decision up to our son when he becomes of age and can decide for himself. (There is no guarantee we will even have a son.)

2.) I do not mind our children being raised Christian. Although, I will not agree to go to a holy roller church, I will research some alternatives (possibly Lutheran, Ctholic, or some other churhc we can agree on.) I have no problems with them going to unday School, reading the Bible, HOWEVER, I do nto approve of there being a huge emophasis on Hell and the Devil. I do not belive in either of those things and refuse to fill my childs mind with fear and fright. So Christianity is okay, as long as our children are taught about love and positive things.

Now, I have a feeling he is NOT going to agree to either of those stuipulations I have. I have compromised enough for him. He lives in a bad area, doesnt have any money or even health insurance, so he stands everything to lose if he cannot make this agreement with me. I buy his groceries, drive whenever we go out, and even give him baths like a baby! He stands everything to lose here, not me. I get hits every day and have no problem turning down his marriage proposal if he cant agree to two little things for me. My question is, do you think I am being reasonable here or a little too hard on him? Thanks!

Answer: Reasonable.

These are important issues as to children.

1) The parts of the penis that are cut off are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To do this to a baby is child abuse and a human rights violation.

The problem is that no guy wants to hear that they have a partial penis and it is known that cut guys sometime justify their own member by pushing it on their child. It is known that cut men (and cut women) are more likely to have parts of their child's genitals cut off.

The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED). I can't understand how anyone could do that to their child.

The severe harm to sexual function and pleasure are ignored or downplayed by the penis part removal pushers. The long term harm is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system. It is estimated that from about 10000 to 100000 specialized nerve endings are cut with this WOUNDING. Some cut guys understand this information and some refuse to consider it. .

IMO men that have been cut, that try to stop this, are true heroes. Let's hope you have a hero...

2)Yikes, I agree, but this is a very emotional issue. I think you should lay down rules that allow a child to be exposed to religious and spiritual thought but will not hijack their rational thinking.

If you can't find agreement, how would you ever be able to function as a team helping a young human grow, learn and mature?

Good luck.

----------
Sorry to go on, but the misinformation is flowing:
the hygeine thing is BS. It is exactly what people that push female circumcision say about uncut women. And they are WRONG.

As to the theory that penis parts should be cut off in order to facilitate hygiene, consider the following comments of a pediatrician. This is certainly a different (and more logical) view of Hygiene:

"My experience as a pediatrician has convinced me that circumcision makes the penis dirtier, a fact that was confirmed by a study recently published in the British Journal of Urology.1 For at least a week after circumcision, the baby is left with a large open wound that is in almost constant contact with urine and feces--hardly a hygienic advantage. Additionally, throughout life the circumcised penis is open and exposed to dirt and contaminants of all kinds. The wrinkles and folds that often form around the circumcision scar frequently harbor dirt and germs.

Thanks to the foreskin, the intact penis is protected from dirt and contamination. While this important protective function is extremely useful while the baby is in diapers, the foreskin provides protection to the glans and urinary opening for a lifetime. At all ages, the foreskin keeps the glans safe, soft, and clean.

Throughout childhood, there is no need to wash underneath the foreskin. Mothers used to be advised to retract the foreskin and wash beneath it every day. This was very bad advice indeed. When the foreskin becomes fully retractable, usually by the end of puberty, your son can retract it and rinse his glans with warm water while he is in the shower."

There is no data that shows HIV, HPV or any STD change or any real benefit to cutting off parts of a baby boys penis in the US, EU JP.... Even in Africa (with water issues) about the same number of cut men and natural penis men have HIV. Real world studies how that a man with a natural penis is at no higher risk of HIV and HPV. The American Cancer Institute has repeatedly said that male circumcision is of no use to lower the risk of ANY cancer of any type. What a bunch of crap.
Category: Newborn & Baby

Live Blog: Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage -- DOMA and ...

To sum up: The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples. .... In a statement, it said: “While it is unfortunate that the Court's ruling does not directly resolve questions about the scope of the trial court's order against Prop 8, we will continue to defend Prop 8 and seek its enforcement until such time as there is a binding statewide order that renders Prop 8 unenforceable ...

Why are people against same-sex marriage when theres no legitimate reason to be?

When it comes to religion here in the U.S. it doesnt play a role in the law making process. If we said in court that "Gays cannot marry because it is a sin." wed be laughed out of the room. If the U.S. truly has religious freedom, then why is one religion favored over another? There are many faiths like Judaism and Buddhism, that will marry homosexuals, so why is this an issue? Even a Justice of the Peace can do it without any religious connotation (this is how many atheist marry). We should value Separation of Church and State.

Ive also hear time and time again that others oppose marriage equality, because children would grow up with their non-biological parents or children are raised best with a mother and father. Well, in all 50 states, homosexuals can adopt children already. There may be laws in place to try to stop them from doing so, but private adoption agencies always bypass these rules. If you truly are against gays having kids, why not be against same-sex adoption and not gay marriage? I, myself, was raised by a single mother for most of my life. While this personal anecdote isnt a study or report, I do believe I turned out fine. If a single parent can raise kids, why cant two homosexuals do the same?

I always see advertisements attacking gay marriage, claiming that it will cause homosexuality to be taught in schools. I never actually cared about that, because its a win-win situation, but if that were true, why dont the opponents stop homosexuality being taught in schools and not gay marriage? I believe their priorities are out of place.

I cannot enter in a conversation without hearing "Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestial-marriages." Rather than take the time to address all of these, I simply ask for anyone who believes in this Slippery Slope Fallacy to prove it. Out of all the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, none of them have the above. If there isnt any proof, then why cant I just as easily say that "Opposite-marriage" will lead to pedophilia?

I constantly hear dissenters offer civil unions or domestic partnerships as a compromise to gay rights supporters (even though none of them push for such legislation), but why? Giving gays civil unions does nothing more than impose religion where it doesnt belong. We never asked divorcees or atheist to go with civil unions, so why now?

Finally, opponents will tell me that homosexuality is against nature, that homosexuals want special rights, the majority are against homosexuality, or an authority is against it. These are all logical fallacies and arent valid arguments, so I wont address them. If you feel I am wrong, theres something I missed, or would like to answer one of my few questions, please do so.

Happy Early New Years~
For rowolfe:

Its the fact that we are denying marriage to homosexuals and giving them civil unions, because of faith, that makes it have a religious connotation. Marriage is truly a civil union already; lets keep it that way.

The only ones with special rights are denying marriage to their fellow citizens. I should not have to explain why an Appeal to Nature, an Appeal to Authority, or an Appeal to Majority is a fallacy. You are intelligent enough to understand them. Also, if you have a problem with homosexuality and not same-sex marriage, then why post about it? Its completely irrelevant.

Answer: My problem is NOT with marriage, but with homosexuality itself. I see homosexuality as a biological dead-end. Isn't the goal of DNA to replicate? How does same gender sex result in procreation? THAT is why I see homosexuality as a sickness of the mind. I can NOT see myself sucking on a penis. I can NOT see myself sticking my penis into the garbage dump, the cesspool, the disease ridden end point of the digestive system, not can I see it as normal that anyone else would do that either. Homosexuals CLAIM to be as normal as anyone else, but I fail to my penis in your butthole or yours in mine, as normal. OTHER than THAT one thing, anything else between consenting adults is fine by me as an expression of affection and yes, maybe even love. I can see kissing a man, but not that other thing. That said, all I am saying is that homosexuality is simply a MINORITY. On THAT basis, I approve of same-sex marriage. In many states, it is called a domestic union and in my state of Washington, as of the last vote by the public, carries the same legal ramifications as a "marriage" sanctified in a church. Go for it. Let 'em have all the benefits of marriage. I look forward to the time when I see the TV program "Divorce Court" which is on for an hour every weekday where I live and I watch once in a while, with gay couples breaking up! It isn't people like ME you have to convince, it is the CHURCH that you have to convince. I may see you as sick, twisted, perverted, but still you are only just another minority as far as I am concerned and deserve the same protection as any other minority. For me, marriage by gays would be a benefit! I would have that many fewer sick perverts hitting on ME when I go barhopping... There is NOTHING more pathetic than a 60 something gay guy hitting on ME.

You say, "Giving gays civil unions does nothing more than impose religion where it doesn't belong."

I must be dense. Getting married by a Justice of the Peace imposes NO such religious connotation, or have I missed something here? How does an atheist or any other non-believer getting married by a Justice impose any religion on anything? It may be called a "marriage" when performed by a Justice, but it really IS a civil union which only goes under the NAME of "marriage" in a legal sense. Atheists do not get married in a church because it is the church that does not accept THEM because they are non-believers. Income tax for a married couple is less than the total paid by the same two people filing individual returns. I get THAT as incentive for gay marriage, but if a civil union gets you that same advantage, why must it be called "marriage" to gain your approval? It is exactly THESE reasons YOU state why most normal people are against your position. You are claiming to be normal when in fact, you are not. You claim special treatment based on what most see is a perversion. Rubbing it in people's faces is NOT the best way to make friends and influence people. I am FOR equal rights, and I am opposed to gay rights as that implies favoritism, special treatment. I am opposed to special treatment based on being gay! I think it is sick, and perverted to stick a penis in a rectum. However, though I am opposed on MY personal preferences, I will NOT discriminate by law banning gay marriage. Freedom means we all have rights. In your case, it is a right to BE sick in the mind. You claim "logical fallacies" but refuse to enumerate WHY, which proves nothing to support your claims. You have to shy proof WHY these are not valid arguments. Your word isn't enough by itself.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Same-Sex Marriage Ruling: A Financial Game Changer - CNBC.com

1 day ago ... Experts say the ruling also raises a raft of new questions about how states that don't recognize same-sex marriage will treat couples that were ...

A question for supporters of gay marriage...?

What is your view on polygamy?

Do you think that men should be allowed multiple wives and vice versa, or do you think that the government has a right to restrict these practices?

Where is the line drawn for non-government intervention into personal lives? homosexuality, polygamy, incest, beastiality, etc.

At what point does the government have a right to interfere in our personal lives?
Edit: Dont try to guess my views on the subject.
Im not comparing homosexuality with incest and beastiality.

I am simply inquiring as to what degree of control you think the government should have in our personal lives.

Answer: There's good reason for prohibiting polygamy, and that is to ensure that marriage is an equal partnership. There's no way to ensure that if there are more than two partners, and only one of a particular gender (Never occurred to me before, but you never see multiple marriages where there's more than one of each gender. Odd.). The rules against incest are based both on the belief that consanguinity can lead to increaed likelihood of passing on of unwanted traits and potential for parents taking advantage of children. Bestiality is prohibited as animals cannot give consent to such a relationship.

Now, you can say that these laws keep people for freely entering into relationships they would consent to, such as, potentially, brother-sister, or situations where the multiple wives prefer the situation. The law does not exist for the purpose of making exceptions. A law cannot say that one multiple household or one incestous relationship is acceptable whereas another is not. If the state has a legitimate purpose which would be harmed by doing away with the law, then the law is legitimate.

When applied to gay marriage, however, this reasoning doesn't work. The usual legitimate state interest cited for straight marriage is that the state wants to encourage children to be raised by their biological parents. This is a fine goal, and one which is certainly aided by encouraging straight marriage with legal benefits. However, it is not a goal that would be harmed by allowing homosexual marriage. True, those marriages would not be able to produce biological offspring of the partners, but it would in no way inhibit straight couples from marrying and having children. Marriage laws already allow for couples who cannot have children between them. Allowing homosexuals the rights and benefits of marriage will not take those rights and benefits away from the other recipients, and will not cause them to stop seeking those benefits.
Category: Politics

Constitutional trickery and gay marriage?

Okay.. Touchy subject, but this is a constitutional question, and a hypothetical, and I am really just interested in what happens when the law runs head-long in to itself, so I am using this issue.

1) Okay.. so if being homosexual is a "Lifestyle choice". (I know, I know.. work with me here). and
2) So is being Jewish or Christian or Hindu or Muslim or what not. and
3) I hypothetically founded the "Church of The Holy Union"... and
4) That church sanctioned and encouraged holy wedlock among homosexuals as well as hetero .. could.
5) Congress make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

or even without all that crap up there, wouldnt a church sanctioned marriage from an established church trump any state amendments since it is specifically outlined in the federal constitution?

I really don;t know the answer.. It seems to me there must be hole in there somewhere or Gay folks would just go get married in a church and tell Uncle Sam to just mind their own damn business and sign the papers please... I know marriage is not defined in the federal constitution, but free exercise of Religion IS, and Marriage is a church thing no? I mean most of em happen in churches and just need a J.O.P of some kind to sign the documents..
Doctari.. Right, I know. What I don;t understand is how that is not specifically unconstitutional under Amendment 1. It seems like not recognizing a religious homosexual union as would be "prohibiting the free exercise" of that religion. I get that officially marriage is a state law thing.. But the laws relegated to states are those not specifically outlined by federal law... Again. I know there is a hole.. just .. where?

... Ah I see. Okay so, The religious union would be nice and legit, but the state, by the same token is required NOT to figure that in... Okay. Fog lifting...
RU Quazee. .. Right I know, Im just trying to use the same arguments when possible. I LIKE the idea that being religious isnt a lifestyle choice.. that opens up a whole new world...

Answer: This is a good question, but a complex one. It involves a lot of moving parts: issues of federalism, equal protection, and free exercise of religion, and probably a few I haven't thought of.

Anyway, let's start with the federalism issue. The decision on whether or not to recognize a marriage as valid rests almost entirely with individual states. When it comes to giving benefits to the spouses of federal employees, all the federal government requires is a valid marriage in any U.S. state, and the federal government has almost no hand in deciding whether or not a particular marriage is valid. The big exception, of course, is the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law saying that the U.S. government will not recognize same-sex marriages for any purpose, even if they're recognized by a particular state.

Furthermore, the federal courts categorically refuse to hear family law issues, and would simply say that the decision to recognize a marriage is one for individual states to make.

There are exceptions, however. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court did strike down state laws which made it illegal for mixed-race couples to get married, holding that such laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. By that point, however, it was well settled that legal classifications based on race are "suspect classifications" and are subject to extremely high constitutional scrutiny.

Now to the equal protection issue.

The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the level of scrutiny that applies to classifications based on sexual orientation. The only Supreme Court case that even sort of addresses this point is Romer v. Evans, which involved an amendment to Colorado's constitution that banned the state or any cities in the state from passing any laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals. The U.S. Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional, holding that it did not even meet the most deferential "rational basis" test, and, therefore, could not be held constitutional under any standard. It did not directly say, however, if sexual orientation is a suspect classification and, if so, what level of scrutiny such classifications are to be examined under.

Accordingly, there is almost no judicial guidance on this issue.

Finally, the the religious freedom issue, which seems to be the heart of your question.

It's important to distinguish between the religious and secular aspects of marriage. Any church which is willing to perform a same-sex marriage is free to do so, whether the state recognizes such marriages or not. However, if the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, as most of them do (which is quite unfortunate, in my opinion), the marriages performed by those churches will have no force of law, and all of the practical benefits that come with government recognition of marriage will not apply to such couples.

However, even if the state refuses to give any legal recognition to those marriages, it's very unlikely that they'd be able to stop people from performing or participating in the ceremonies - that would be a clear violation of the First Amendments' free exercise clause.

And remember, no religious overtones are required for a marriage to be performed - if you want, you can just go down to city hall and have a county clerk sign your marriage license, making you legally married.

So, state laws that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage don't really raise any issues under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (though if the basis for those laws is entirely religious, there might be an issue under the Establishment Clause).

Now, suppose I were to create a church that performed same-sex marriages, and demanded state recognition of those unions, in a state that does not currently recognize them. I might argue that the state law violates my right to freely practice my religion.

However, a federal court would almost certainly rule that the state law would only be subject to "rational basis" scrutiny, because it's a law of general application, which simply happens to place a burden on one religious group's practices. This is how laws banning the consumption of peyote are upheld as constitutional, even though peyote is an integral part of some religious ceremonies.
Category: Law & Ethics

Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for ...

23 hours ago ... Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages raises questions for plans ... Committee, which represents large employers on benefits issues.

would you vote for me?

THIS QUESTION IS COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL
ive always wondered what i would do if i was ever elected president, and i was wondering who would vote for my ideas witch are as follows.
first of i would limit congressmen to only 3 terms and Governors to 2 terms. next i would lower their pensions and pay. "to serve in office should be an honor, not a privilege"
next i would raise the pay, benefits, and pension of US troops.
next is welfare. for the first two months of being laid off someone can apply for welfare, and anyone with a disability can also apply. being addicted to alcohol or other drugs would not count as a disability.
next to create jobs and to have more fresh water i would put saltwater purification plants along the east and west coasts.
next (depending on the publics opinion.) i would legalize marijuana for the following reasons.
first there would be much less crime.
second i would put a 20% tax on it.
third people are going to get a hold of it if they want to anyways, at least this way well be able to limit what they get, also in the community i live in, most people i talk to will say it is much easier for them to get marijuana then it is for them to get alcohol. Why? because its in stores that get in major trouble for selling to minors well marijuana dealers just pay a fine and their good, besides smoking Marijuana should be a choice, this is America isnt it?
and of course someone would ask me my opinion on abortion. personally im against it, but it is a choice and i would have no laws against it, but i would strongly discourage it.
lastly i would legalize gay marriage, if two people truly love each other then it doesnt matter if they are gay or strait.
thank you for reading all the way through and i would just like to know what people would agree with or disagree with and why. any comments positive or negative are appreciated.

Answer: Ok...........well, HYPOTHETICALLY..........where to start.

First off, I agree that the majority of the problem is that there are way too many old farts making politics a permanent career. And rather than representing the people, these old bastards only look out for themselves and feather thier own nest.
HOWEVER..........
While government uses the sadly failing idea of "baseline budgeting", so does the military. While I was in I saw many times we were spending money towards the end of the fiscal year, some for things we really didn't need. All becasue of "baseline budgeting". Whoever set up a system that if you were efficient and spent less that you would automatically lose the money ever year afterwards is a hack piece of crap. Some years you need money, some you don't.
But I agree on pensions............except for high ranking officers. Do you realize that there are some admirals out there earning a good $6,000 plus per month ? That's excessive.
I'll pass on welfare since i'm not familiar with it much.
I do believe in medical marijuana, but it needs regulation so that pot head kids aren't a problem. We already have one of the stupidest generations out there, we don't need stupid and drugged up.

but you wouldn't have the power as president to make gay marriage legal. VIOLATING the Constitution is one thing that pisses off the Conservatives (a 40% voting block) And it says any powers not given the the Feds is the pervue of the States. So every state has the right to make this thier own issue. California TWICE voted NO on gay marriage, but rather than accept it, gay activist cry babies are trying to get the federal courts to over turn it. Its called gaming the system and the Constitution shoud NOT be flexible to accomodate any one group. When you start making exceptions, everyone will have a precident to use in the future. The Constitution is what prevents Mob Rule from getting thier way. It is the law of the land and it should be OBEYED.

You also need to deal with all the damn illegal loving moron's out there that justify the swamping of our social systems. California spent $1.6 billion last year on illegals (not including schooling) and they are sucking the life out of our country. They need to stand in line, fill out the paperwork or get the F**K out of the country. Get legal or get OUT.
Category: Elections

NOTABLE BOOKS OF THE YEAR: 1994

This list has been selected from books reviewed since the Christmas Books issue of December 1993. The list suggests only high points in the main fields of reader interest, and it does not include titles chosen by the editors of the Book Review as the Best Books of 1994. Books are arranged alphabetically under subject headings. Biographies and

The American System, how is it that the powers that are, can influence their citizens?

to vote against their own self interest and for the interest of the wealthy?

For example

Lower taxes
By lowering taxes the rich save a huge a mount of money (yes because they pay a huge amount of money) while the middle class and lower class save less money and in return have to pay more than their tax savings in new or higher user fees.

Social security
By privatizing it, the owners of the system will make huge profits while the participants will receive less in benefits.

Medical insurance
The top dogs of the corporations make an obscene amount of money, while middle and lower class pray that if a health issue arises that they will be taken care of.

The war
In hindsight, the war was based on illussion. Yet if you are of the right stripe are still for it but against raising taxes. The pro business pres has lowered the taxes to be paid currently but in reality has raised future taxes.

How do the powers that are push our buttons so magically to get us to accept this

Answer: 1. we are a 'short attention span society' , a tv generation riased on simplistic answers and quick fixes. The average american is not particularly bright.
2. disinterest, the average american is ill-informed and apathetic.
3. gullible- our public gets sucked into smoke and mirrors tricks-' gee the biggest issue was really gay marriage'? kinds of crap that deflects the public from core problems.
4. burn-out- many people are resigned to a corrup system
5. fears- the talking heads get people to fear action- don't question, dont protest- you will be a social leper.
6.ignorance- most americans don't get it , that the military-industrial complex runs the country, as strongest lobbies and influence peddlers of big oil, pharmaceutical companies, etc.
7. bought and paid- people sense war is good business, in a country that spends more than the rest of the world combined on war machinery.........
8. less taxes is a myth- simply shifted to state tax increases, user taxes such as the hidden gasoline tax silently rising and shifted costs- ie less government funding of indigent patients returns to you as higher premiums.......
9. nobility of leadership- we hold our leaders in awe and above reproach ( unless named clinton) blindly following their interests.
10. the people allowed religious superstition to rule their judgement - if you oppose something a republican is doing, doesn't one go straight to hell?
Category: Law & Ethics

Court ruling opens door to gay marriage - The Orange County Register

19 hours ago ... News: Ruling opens door to gay marriage | court, marriage, ruling, prop, ... unconstitutional – a ruling that also raises questions about the future of the ... the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had banned federal benefits ...

Why are Christians saying gays cant marry because it violates the sanctity of marriage when...?

...the divorce rate among HETEROsexual couples is almost 60%? Where exactly is this sanctity they are talking about?

Also, Ive heard some Cons say allowing gay marriage will devestate the birth rate in this country. What, like you are going to FORCE gay folks to be hetero, FORCE them to marry the opposite sex and then FORCE them to have kids?

Im all for gay marriage in this country, but I am trying to at least make sense of the arguments against it...and I see no logic in even ONE of them.

Answer: I don't understand this vehement opposition. How does it lesson one's own marriage? Or maybe I do understand it.

I'll tell you what this is in my view, if you're willing to hear some frank opinion. Some of it is outright ignorance or hate. But most of it is simple insecurity. I think the opposition to gay rights comes from a lack of self confidence of one's own social standing. That's male insecurity mind you- clearly homophobia was born of male competition over women. These men see gays as a threat to their own chances with women. If society allows homosexuals to coexist openly among heterosexuals, then these homosexuals may begin to influence women's opinions of what traits are desirable in men. Rather than controlling themselves, confident in their choice of lifestyle, interests, opinions, and how appealing they are in the eyes of women, these men panic, and demand absolute control over the rules of the game. They insist very publicly that everyone must hold the same opinions and respect the same rules. This is absurd in my mind.

Though nothing new, of course. It's simple Darwinian competition, and has been in play for millions of years. This political issue illustrates two very different approaches to life: One values working hard to make oneself a strong competitor in a game with ever-evolving rules. The other pretends the rules- and only such rules as benefit oneself- are static and absolute, then forces these fictitious rules upon all of society and punishes any skeptics or non-conformists.

Both approaches to life raise one's stock in the Darwinian game. It is undeniable that bigotry is effective. It achieves its aims. But which approach is stronger, that is, which approach ultimately will succeed in the long run? Before you answer, ask yourself one more question: Which approach is more adaptable? Well, you can see where I'm going with this. In a game of Darwinian competition the more adaptable strategy ultimately wins. So long as man remains civilized, the liberal belief wins out. It requires less energy. One manages oneself, not everyone else.

Civilization produces homosexuality. That's an uncomfortable fact to many men, but that's in our genetic makeup. Let's ask ourselves why homosexuality is more prevalent in cities. Why? Because of the reasons given above. In a city one learns very quickly that one cannot possibly manage everyone's beliefs. In rural settings, however, it is possible. People who live in rural settings are no different than their urban neighbors, it's just that one Darwinian strategy- the conservative one- plays out more favorably. Why is homosexuality more accepted in Europe? Older cities.

I believe my analysis applies to many other issues, not just the issue of gay rights. I see this political issue as one of many social conflicts that at their most basic become a struggle of the self versus the group, the individual versus the collective. Nothing new, Freud called it Civilization and its Discontents. Who you side with depends on your self-confidence regarding the Darwinian competition at stake. Do you gain more by siding with the group, or do you gain more by setting out on your own?

I have a contrarian personality, so I tend to fight the group because I rarely see it as benefiting myself. I see it as constraining me; constraining talent and ingenuity in return for familiarity and predictability. No doubt the world is a much cozier and safer place if everyone holds the same opinions, respects the same rules, and refrains from questioning Official Wisdom. It is also a much more boring place.

To quote Jim Morrison,

"How many of you are alive? How many of you people know you're really alive? You're all plastic soldiers in a miniature dirt war. I am the lizard king. I can do anything!"

A little out there, but essentially correct.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Gay Marriage to be Legal?

All right, I know that in this category, we get like 15 Gay Marriage questions a day. I have one more to add to the mix.

"Why should we legalize Gay Marriage?"

I think that we should legalize gay marriage because its a right. I cant believe that all the bigots continue to use a book of fiction written so many years ago dictate their opinion. In case they have forgotten, The Bible is no longer credited as a reliable and reasonable source of information. That would be like me going around preaching and saying something was wrong because Mark Twain said so.

They then make the argument that changing the definition of marriage from a loving bond between one man and one woman to a loving bond between two persons, is wrong and sickens them. In my opinion if you lose sleep at night because the definition of marriage has been changed, then you have other issues to sort out.

The last argument I find them using often is that gay people cant procreate. Well, Duh! But the whole point of a marriage isnt simply to have children..... the world is over populated as it is. But if people were simply to marry on the basis of just having kids than why do we left infertile and sterile people marry?

So many flaws. Whats your opinion?

PS- If you dont like the sight of two men or two woemn kissing, LOOK AWAY!!! No body asked for an audience.

Answer: It should be legal. Absolutely. The Federal government explicitly says that marriage is to be regulated by each state. Yet, the Federal government also says that federal agencies will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 under President Clinton.

The definition of Civil Marriage is:
- 2 (not 3 or more)
- consenting adults (which leaves out children, inanimate objects, non humans, & animals, since none can consent)
- that are not closely related per state statutes (& in 20+ states, you can be 1st cousins & still legally marry) &
- who follow the rules established by the state for marriage who want to provide for each other & make that commitment to each other

So, same-sex couples legally married in those states that recognize SSMs are treated as complete strangers by the US Federal government.

This becomes a problem in many circumstances. Upon death, the Federal government's laws kick in - for example, the IRS determines what part of the estate is taxable. With a marriage that the federal government recognizes, there is no problem - spousal privileges allow the living spouse to inherit the house without paying tax on it. But since the federal government does not recognize SSM- even when it's completely legal- the surviving spouse is a legal stranger according to the IRS. And with one person leaving his house to a stranger, the stranger has to pay taxes on the value of the house (or at least the portion that was willed to him)! This causes many couples, especially elderly ones, to have to SELL their house just to pay the taxes. . A valid marriage license between same-sex couples does not entitle you to apply for US Citizenship on that basis - the federal government simply treats you like strangers.

Yeah, that helps support a stable society and promotes family stability.

We want our marriages to be treated the same way as any other marriage. No more, no less.

You would think, after all the trials & tribulations this country has been through with discrimination & unequal treatment of its citizens based on religion, race/skin color, nationality, gender, veteran status, disability, or social status, we would have learned something, right?

Apparently not. Once again, this country is discriminating against another group of taxpaying, law abiding citizens who are contributing members to our society. 2 consenting adults REGARDLESS of sex should be allowed to marry as long as they meet their state's regulation for marriage. Yet even when they DO, our federal government STILL denies them the full benefits of marriage that are automatically bestowed on straight married couples.

Until the federal government rescinds DOMA & starts to recognize the state's authority in determining who is eligible for marriage & their rights thereof, there is an inequality. That's why LGBT are challenging DOMA so that our loved ones can be protected. Nothing else other than marriage provides those protections to that couple.

And to those who have an issue with their tax payer dollars providing benefits for same sex marriages? Get over it. If we provide benefits for MARRIAGE, treat all marriages the same. And if you think SSM are just about the benefits, please come up with some type of test to deny marriage to those, gay OR straight, who marry for the benefits. Whatever reason a couple gets married for is THEIR BUSINESS, be it love, stability, some type of business arrangement, whatever. Don't you dare try to tell me all straight people marry to propagate the species & need tax breaks just to raise kids.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Supremes dump DOMA: Score one for gay marriage | Crosscut.com

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the Defense of Marriage Act violates the U.S. Constitution. Seattle U. law ... Social security and veteran's benefits will be available to surviving same-sex spouses, as long as the couple resided in Washington (or another marriage recognition state) at the time of the death and was actually married. While these consequences of Windsor are relatively clear, its application raises new legal questions. What happens if ...

Marriage in the lbgt community?

Ok bare with me Im not old enough like some of you Im 15 and gay and I over heard both my dads saying constantly everything would be better if they were married. Why though thats what I dont get? So please teach me. And this is another question why is it that my moms are able to marry?

Answer: Gay married families aren't able to provide their family with the benefits that straight married families get automatically through marriage. Being able to have a same sex marriage that's recognized by your parents state of residence depends on the state's law AND when they tried to get married,

There are 1130+ federal benefits of marriage identified by the General Accounting Office (GAO) which are automatically bestowed on heterosexual married couples to help the couple in raising a child/children in a loving, stable home. The following are some of the benefits the couple would use during their lives together, or if one part of the couple becomes incapacitated/dies:
• the ability to file joint income tax with the IRS
• exemption from paying federal tax on employer-provided health insurance for a spouse
• benefits for the spouse of a military veteran.
• inheritance tax exemptions on property the couple owns jointly
• social security benefits for the surviving spouse
• apply for US citizenship if you are married to a US citizen

There is NO provision for civil unions or domestic partnerships that are recognized by the state the couple resides in for LGBT OR straight couples. No will, POA, or any legal document can ensure that the surviving partner of a same sex couple gets the same benefits of marriage that straight couples take for granted. The children of these couples can miss out on federal programs that are only eligible for MARRIED families becaause our government only recognizes straight marriage.

Since our Constitution doesn’t specifically give Federal gov’t the power to regulate marriage, marriage is to be regulated by each state. Yet, the Federal government also says that federal agencies will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 under President Clinton.

They should be treated as such. And currently, they are NOT.

The definition of Civil Marriage is:
- 2 (not 3 or more)
- consenting adults (which leaves out children, inanimate objects, non humans, & animals, since none can consent)
- that are not closely related per state statutes (& in 20+ states, you can be 1st cousins & still legally marry) &
- who follow the rules established by the state for marriage who want to provide for each other & make that commitment to each other
SHOULD be able to marry like anyone else. Nothing more, nothing less.

People who sayicivil marriage by gay folks will lead to those things I mentioned above are trying to instill fear. DOn't fall for their male bovine excrement.

Hope this helps.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Question about gay marriages and interstate law (non abusive)?

If a gay couple gets married in one of the states that allows it, are they still legally married if they move to a state where its not recognized? Does the couple still get the "benefits" i.e. tax stuff, spousal rights, etc?

Started thinking about this when I realized the possible parallels between the federal attitude on marijuana and the attitude of some states. Its a not widely known fact that producers of legal marijuana in states that approve of its medical use must still hide from the feds...
If one gets married in Vegas or divorced in Mexico, its still recognized by other states. Cant the same protections be used as a precident to protect gay marriages?

The same logic applies, people go to Vegas and Mexico because the local laws make what they want to do quicker and easier, but theyre still divorced or married once they cross the border.

For the record, Im not gay. Hell, I dont even have an interest in getting married, lol. I think that its an issue that affects all of us however, regardless of sexual preference.

Whats next? A ban on interracial marriage? A ban on people of different heights getting married? Slippery slope ahead...

Answer: Right now, a lot of the state (so-called) defense of marriage acts (DOMA) say that they won't recognize same-sex marriages in other states.

However, I think there will be a good case under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to recognize a valid marriage when the couple moves to another state, even thought that's what currently being used to support the federal DOMA.

Currently, a same-sex couple, married or recognized as domestic partners, are granted only state rights. They don't have federal rights. The GAO has found 1,138 federal benefits granted when a couple marries; all of these are denied to same-sex couples (link is on this page: http://www.thetaskforce.org/community/marriagecenter.cfm). So, if a couple of 18-year-olds go on a bender, go to Vegas and get married by Elvis, they've got those rights that a gay couple who've been together for decades, own property together, raise kids together, etc., will always be denied.

In some states, I believe Ohio, Utah, and Virginia among them, state law goes as far to say that couples can't contract in a way that suggests a marriage. That would mean wills and other estate planning, power of attorney or advance medical directives, etc.

I really don't see the benefit to the state in denying all of this to a small percentage of the population. Especially since marriage and property ownership are shown to be good overall for a stable population, property transfer, etc.

As for the analogy to marijuana, over the last few years the federal government has definitely been going after the medical marijuana growers. (What's easier to find, a street dealer or a cancer patient at a pot club?) Again, seems like a lot of effort for the gain. Not that I want people driving around high, but it seems like something akin to how we treat alcohol is in order.

Full Faith and Credit (US Constitution Article IV, Section 1):
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The Federal DOMA text:
1 USC Sec. 7
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

28 USC Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

THE LISTINGS | JAN. 19 - JAN. 25

Selective listings by critics of The New York Times of new and noteworthy cultural events in the New York metropolitan region this week. * denotes a highly recommended film, concert, show or exhibition. Theater Approximate running times are in parentheses. Theaters are in Manhattan unless otherwise noted. Full reviews of current shows, additional

Married gay couples deserve same rights, Supreme Court rules - LA ...

The decision will immediately extend some federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it will also raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage ...

US Supreme Court makes same-sex marriage rulings ...

Neither decision will have the effect of requiring states to honor same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but the DOMA case likely will affect how the federal government must treat same-sex marriages for purposes ranging from Social Security benefits to taxation. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy criticised the law for ... “This raises a most serious question under the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.” The California case was brought by two couples who were ...

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, clears way for gay marriage in ...

The other is a challenge to a provision of federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and pension benefits. (AP Photo/J. Scott ... In the first of the narrow rulings in its final session of the term, the court wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act, that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits that are otherwise available to married couples.

Legal Expert Weighs In On Same Sex Marriage In Tennessee ...

Legal experts say the decision is clear about many issues, but it still raises a lot of questions in Tennessee. “Where the ambiguity comes in what about the states that still don't recognize gay marriage and what about a couple ...

MASSACHUSETTS GIVES NEW PUSH TO GAY MARRIAGE

Massachusetts highest court removed the states last barrier to gay marriage on Wednesday, ruling that nothing short of full-fledged marriage would comply with the courts earlier ruling in November, and that civil unions would not pass muster. The ruling means that starting on May 17 same-sex couples can get married in Massachusetts, making it - Highest court in Massachusetts removes states last barrier to gay marriage, ruling that nothing short of full-fledged marriage will comply with its earlier ruling in Nov, and that civil unions will not pass muster; ruling means that starting May 17 same-sex couples can get married in state, making it only state to permit gay marriage; ruling is certain to inflame divisive debate in state legislatures nationwide and in this years presidential race; ruling will probably give new impetus to push by many conservatives for constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to unions joining man and woman; Pres Bush condemns Massachusetts courts latest ruling but stops short of explicitly endorsing constitutional amendment; prospect of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts raises practical questions about what couple would be entitled to in terms of benefits from federal government as well as from other states that outlaw same-sex marriages; photo (M) - By PAM BELLUCK; Katie Zezima contributed reporting for this article.

Ruling raises gay marriage questions in Mo. - Southeast Missourian

1 day ago ... Ruling raises gay marriage questions in Mo. ... struck down a provision of a federal law that denies federal benefits to married gay couples.

What do you guys think about the gay marriage bill being revoked in New Jersey?

just wanted some opinions. also when do think they will propose the bill to the senate again? i cant believe after it was revoked people actually stood up and cheered. Isnt that a little rude? i mean that was disappointing to people. i actually dont have a true opinion on this by the way, but it was definitely an experience for me to watch most of it on tv, and of course i think it was rude for this ignorant people to cheer. i also dont mean to offend anyone with this question, whether you support gay marriage or not. anyway, thanks for your time.

Answer: Sad. Another damn nail in the coffin for same sex equality. Things will change, but just like the fight for equality for law-abiding, tax paying citizens who are contributing members of society (American Indians, military Veterans, Women, Blacks, people with disabilities, Japanese Americans, & any other marginalized groups who was treated unfairly because of perceived differences), we have to go through the federal courts to get stuff done. Jan 11th is the statr of the fight in CA as Prop 8 is on trial in federal court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the user whose names begins with a G that said: "Having said that, while it may not be marriage in the traditional sense, we must recognize what it is, which is really all about money, property, and rights of inheritance. These things can be established and preserved though legal partnerships, corporations, and such"

That's a line of male bovine manure. There is NO provision for civil unions or domestic partnerships that are recognized by the state the couple resides in for LGBT OR straight couples. No will, POA, or any legal document can ensure that the surviving partner of a same sex couple gets the same benefits of marriage that straight couples take for granted at a state OR federal level. Same-sex couples legally married in those states that recognize same sex marriage (SSMs) are treated as complete strangers by the US Federal government & miss out on the following federal benefits of marriage:
• the ability to file joint income tax with the IRS
• exemption from paying federal tax on employer-provided health insurance for a spouse
• benefits for the spouse of a military veteran.
• inheritance tax exemptions on property the couple owns jointly
• social security benefits for the surviving spouse
• apply for US citizenship if you are married to a US citizen

Since you have an issue have an issue with tax payer dollars providing benefits for same sex marriages? Get over it. If we provide benefits for MARRIAGE, treat ALL marriages (which are STATE, not church, sanctioned unions) the same. As long as the couple complies with the sate rules for marriage (which leaves out marrying a child, marrying 2 or more people, marrying inanimate object or animals, or marrying relatives closer than 1st cousins), you people need to SDASTFU.

And if you think SSMs are just about the benefits, please come up with some type of litmus test to deny marriage to those, gay OR straight, who marry for the benefits, or take all of the federal benefits of marriage out COMPLETELY (it would save the feds BILLIONS per year, wouldn't it?). Whatever reason a couple gets married for is THEIR BUSINESS, be it love, stability, some type of business arrangement, whatever. Don't you dare try to tell me all straight people marry to propagate the species & need tax breaks just to raise kids.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings ...

1 day ago ... The court ruled unconstitutional a 1996 law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples and cleared the way for ... The decision will raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how ...

Question for those who DO NOT support gay marriage...?

My friend said the following to me the other day and it really made me think about things differently. Let me know if it has an impact on the way you think about things....

If your child (as a young adult) were to approach you tomorrow and tell you they were gay, how would you respond? Would you yell, scream, kick them out of the house? Would you let them continue living at home but cease to love them? Would you coach them into trying to date the opposite sex. If they came to you with their significant other as a gay man or woman and told you they wanted to get married, would you be supportive or still look your child in the eye and tell them that you think their love is wrong. Would you, the mother or father of a gay child, continue to vote against gay marriage and deny your child rights that a straight child has?


If you believe gay marriage is wrong, could you please explain why, with evidence so I know your answers are just. I am just really trying to figure out why people are against this.
Thank you.
Veggie Boy, I do not know where to begin. First of all CHILD MOLESTATION and being gay are completely different so please do not try and relate the two. Gays want the right to for two adults to marry the person they love and you are comparing these people to having sex with chickens and infants. You sicken me.

Answer: Had to add my 2 cents worth in response to the 2 answers directly above me. If my child were gay, I would be worried for them because people in this world are stupid & like too destroy something they don't understand. But that's my child-I would love them. What's wrong is that people want to get involved in someone else's marriage, which is no concern or business of anyone else other than that couple in that marriage.

The definition of Civil Marriage is:
- 2 (not 3 or more)
- consenting adults (which leaves out children, inanimate objects, non humans, & animals, since none can consent. You can co-hearse a child to consent, but a child's mind & body are not fully developed to comprehend the emotional, physical, & pyschological ramifications of having sex with an adult or getting pregenant)
- that are not closely related per state statutes (& in 20+ states, you can be 1st cousins & still legally marry) &
- who follow the rules established by the state for marriage who want to provide for each other & make that commitment to each other.

So, saying civil marriage by gay folks will lead to those things I mentioned above is trying to instill fear.

Marriage has evolved & changed as long as humans have been on earth. Otherwise, women would be property, men could have more than 1 wife plus a few mistresses on the side, brides could be stoned for NOT being virgins on their wedding night, & some of my family wouldn't be here because their parents couldn't have married because they're different races.As far as benefits, since the Feds go by what the STATES deem as legally married for purposes of bestowing federal benefits on the married couple, the feds should honor ALL state sanctioned marriages. By honoring 1 type of marriage & not the other, even though the couples have complied with their state's laws on getting married, is unfair.

Gay folks are law abiding, tax paying citizens who are dealing with the same issues with money, kids, mortgages, work/career, etc. just like everyone else. To those people who have an issue with their tax payer dollars providing benefits for same sex marriages? Get over it. If we provide benefits for MARRIAGE, treat ALL state sanctioned marriages the same, because this picking & choosing based on the sex of the couple is BS.

Certain groups are given certain benefits/incentives by our government, & marriage (like being a veteran, or student, or older person collecting Medicare) are entitled to certain benefits under the law if they qualify for it. We want our marriages to be treated the same way as any other marriage. No more, no less. We want to take care of our families & ensure that they are taken care of/get whatever benefits we are entitled to should we become incapacitated or die. I can't see why picking & choosing which marriage is honored, even when they BOTH are recognized by the state, helps support a stable society and promotes family stability. Gay married families aren't able to provide their family with the benefits that other married families get automatically through marriage.

If people like Matthew T think SSM are just about the benefits, please come up with some type of test to deny marriage to those, gay OR straight, who marry for the benefits. Whatever reason a couple gets married for is THEIR BUSINESS, be it love, stability, some type of business arrangement, whatever. Don't you dare try to tell me all straight people marry to propagate the species & need tax breaks just to raise kids. You don't have to be straight to have kids, raise them, or provide them with the love & nuturing for them to become contributing members of society. And you don't have to be married to do all that, either.

It is a shame that after all the trials & tribulations this country has been through with discrimination/unequal treatment of people based on religion, race/skin color, nationality, gender, veteran status, disability, or social status, we haven’t learned from past mistakes. Once again, this country is discriminating against another group of taxpaying, law abiding citizens who are contributing members to our society. 2 consenting adults REGARDLESS of sex should be allowed to marry as long as they meet their state's regulation for marriage. Yet even when they DO, our federal government STILL denies them the full benefits of marriage that are automatically bestowed on straight married couples.

Civil rights were taken away & unequal treatment of others was seen as ok by the majority. When these groups fought for their rights, they were met with strong opposition & their civil rights had to be handled by our GOVERNMENT in order for equality to prevail. If these groups waited on the support of the majority, they would still be discriminated against to this day. People don't like change & want to keep the status quo. And as long as the rights of these groups of people didn't affect the majority, the majority didn't care.

Yet here we are rep
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

14th amendment, Protects gay rights?

Does it or does it not?
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person ***"life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” **** By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.
PLEASE SOURCE YOUR INFORMATION FROM AN INTERNET SITE, OR BOOK.

Answer: I have an answer and a source for you that your NEA-paid teacher won't like at all, so I don't think I have to worry about doing your homework for you/

The 14th amendment was mainly adopted to answer the question of whether or not freed slaves were citizens. The Supreme Court had found in the 1850s that Dred Scott was not an American citizen based on his status as a slave and therefore ineligible to bring suit in an American court and returned him to slavery. (This was after the Missouri Supreme Court had freed him)

"Equal Protection" meant that every state had to toe the federal line when it came to passing and enforcing certain laws. It was recently used against California when they wanted to deny their generous welfare program to persons who were residents for less than one year. The Supreme Court found that the fourteenth amendment applied and said no. Now California is bankrupt.

Homosexual people should be, and under our existing system generally are, protected just like everyone else. There is no law that says that a citizen who assaults a homosexual person is not liable to prosecution, for instance. In this way, everyone is already protected under the law.

If it's marriage you want, a legally recognized marriage is a privilege, licensed by a probate court according to the constitution of an individual state. Some states require blood tests and prohibit persons with certain diseases to be married. Some states like West Virginia have very strict laws about how closely related a couple can be to be issued a marriage license. Finally, most states only license marriages between a man and a woman.

The government recognizes marriage because it's good for business. Married people can make babies and raise them in a safe environment so later they can work and pay taxes and be soldiers and support old people if that's the kind of thing the states like to do. Recognizing and handing out benefits to homosexual marriages generates nothing but good feelings with little return for the state. If a state decides that homosexual marriage is no good for its own interests, like California's struck-down welfare rules, it should be allowed to deny it.

The 14th amendment is a power grab now and was in the 1860s. After the successful passage of the 13th amendment (outlawing slavery), the Republicans in Congress bought this one forward to make sure they could make the rules in the future. When they voted no, the same southern states that voted for the 13th amendment were declared illegitimate by the Republicans, cutting out an inconvenient third of the electorate. Several western states tried to rescind their yes votes, but to no avail.

"Gay Rights" as it is called, should remain in the hands of the states, where the individuals are better able to make decisions on the kind of government they want. That's what democracy is, right? The 14th amendment should not be employed a a bludgeon against them.

Edit.

How come I always get disliked when I take a constitutional or strictly legal approach to controversial issues?
Category: Law & Ethics