Why is DOMA unconstitutional? Gay couples pay into Medicaid,
can't use it. From our own Deseret news: 'Gay
marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie -
AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10 'U.S. District Judge
Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate
challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the
Obama administration has argued for repealing. (sic) 'The state had
argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in
Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'
Another reason why DOMA is unconstitutional. From our own Deseret
news: ’Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial of benefits’
– By Jessica Gresko – AP – Published by Dsnews –
02/01/12 ‘The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a
12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she
married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey
Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received
disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result.
But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are
entitled to was denied.’ – article Our veterans fight
for us. Sacrifice for us. Get legally wed in some states. Pay into VA benefits.
Granted to straight couples. Denied to LGBT.
The issue is, will we allow entities that do not represent a marriage to receive
the benefits of marriage.If a man and a woman live together outside
of marriage should they have the same rights as a couple that is married?Civilizations have a responsibility to promote marriage between a man
and a woman as it is the glue that holds the social fabric together... those who
promote homosexuality and homosexual marriage do so at the expense of our
It does not appear that marriage is anywhere in the Constitution and therefore
needs to be for the "Several States" to define and decide, not SCOTUS.
As to anecdotal evidence where there might be unintended financial or loss of
benefits that might harm gay partners, that occurs with every law that protects
one class to the detriment of another class. Basically the entire homosexual and
related gay marriage issues are simply in conflict with Genesis, the first book
of the Bible that narrates how God created them male and female, blessed them
and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue
it.” That solves the issues of marriage, homosexuality, and the source of
life. Believers believe; non-believers do not; it is a free individual choice.
To disagree on this or other topics is a basic human right. SCOTUS should revert
the entire gay marriage issue back to the Several States.
Gay Marriage is not the ProblemMy problem with the defense of
marriage act is I fail to see how not letting gays marry affects the marriages
of straight people, for good or ill. In our neighborhood there have been two gay
couples that I know of, one two men, the other two women. Their relationship
didn't affect my marriage, nor would it have had I been aware that they
called their relationship marriage.I think people fighting gay
marriage are missing the point. It is not gay marriage that is the problem, but
gay adoption. A child should have a mother and a father. When this can be
provided to a child that is to be adopted out, it should be.
“A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine
unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.A slight
correction - 5 unelected people.
Equal rights should not be dictated a group of religious zealots. If anything
equal rights should be God given rights protected by the government.
@truthseeker --"those who promote homosexuality and homosexual
marriage do so at the expense of our country."Fortunately, that
isn't your call.DOMA applies only to couples who are *already*
legally married in their states of residence. Since you don't live in their
states, you have nothing to say legally about their marriages.Once
they **are** married, the federal government is required by the US Constitution
to treat them just the same as any other legally married couple.And
THAT is what the Supreme Court case against DOMA is about. It has nothing to do
with whether you happen to approve of them, or not.
The constitution doesn't promise that we can all have the same things. It
does promise that we can enjoy the same opportunities and that we have rights to
those opportunities. I have the right to legal benefits when I marry someone of
the opposite sex.. so does everyone else. Neither I or a donkey would get those
same benefits if we married. Even though the donkey would like the benefit that
could be realized by participating in the marriage. Don't be a
donkey - Leave traditional marriage alone!
OnlyInUtah..tell me where it's legal to marry a donkey and your argument
may have some credence otherwise it's hyperbolic nonsense. Gays can be
@OnlyInUtah,A donkey cannot sign a contract. But a consenting adult
can. A child cannot sign a contract, neither can a truck or the Statue of
Liberty. This is why you cannot marry a donkey, a child, or the Statue of
Liberty.The Bible warns against homosexuality. It is in the part
between explaining how to treat your slaves and the part on the evils of eating
shellfish. I can't wait until the Supreme Court looks into a federal ban on
@FDRfan:I completely disagree. It has always interested me that
when the SCOTUS comes down in favor of what a person believes, they are suddenly
the most wise jurists in the land, but when there is a possibility they will go
against what a group of people want, then they are useless, and a danger to our
democracy. When Roosevelt tried his court-packing plan, he was sorely mistaken,
as you are right now. We give Justices life appointments so they will at least
be technically beyond bribe or blackmail, but also so change to the the laws and
practices of our legal system will be a slow process. The unfortunate side
effect is civil rights progress takes a long time, however, it also ensures
changes come along more in line with the slow social progress of the people.Nine (or five, as you put it) Justices is what the Constitution calls
for, and if you listened to the arguments as I did, you would have heard both
liberal and conservative judges grilling the lawyers from both sides of the
case, not playing favorites. It is our process, and it works.
OnlyinUtah,The Constitution DOES promise that it will treat all
citizens equally under the law. Surprise! It cannot promise we will all be
alike and have the exact same things or the same opportunities, but where it
give some citizens benefits and privileges, it will give other citizens
similarily situated, the same benefits and privileges.Doma states
that married gay couples in states that grant gay marriage will be treated
differently than other married couples in that same state. Tell me how that can
be constitutional when we have the 14th amendment? Or, if you are like Justice
Kennedy, how does that fit under the 10th amendment of having each state say
what is a marriage? The federal government has no right to define marriage
which is what Doma also does.Totally unconstitutional.It
will be interesting to see what they do with section 2 of Doma - which allows
each state to say whether or not they accept gay marriages from other states.
That runs smack dab into the full faith and credit clause and seems to be
unconstitutional too.Doma has served its purpose and should go away.
Bible verses and religious beliefs have nothing to do with the issue before the
court. It's purely about civil marriage and its recognition by the
government for legal purposes. No one is asking that churches be required to
perform marriages that go against their doctrines or that churches give
religious recognition to any particular marriage. It's similar to
marriages between Mormon and non-Mormon, or between a member of any church that
doesn't recognize or perform marriages between its members and non-members.
They're legally married, but those churches still don't have to
recognize it as a valid marriage for purposes of faith and membership. Fifty
years ago, many states had laws prohibiting marriage between whites and
non-whites, and supporters of those laws had their bible verses to back up their
arguments against it. They were wrong. Fifty years from now, we'll look
back on this issue the same way.
@ OnlyInUtah;My friend, please don't date a donkey. They are
unpredictable, kick very hard and can be awfully stubborn. Besides, I'm
afraid it would be illegal and improbable that you can marry the donkey that
owns your heart. They are bad spellers and have a hard time holding a pen to
sign their name in an official piece of paper. Nothing wrong with keeping it as
platonic as possible. Sincerely,AbbyFortunately for the
SCOTUS, they are deciding in a couple of more simple cases. Prop 8 and DOMA,
both cases have to do with legally recognized American citizens and their right
to join in matrimony. The questions are: Can an adult, sound of mind, free of
legal burdens, marry another adult in similar circumstances? If their state
allow them to marry, shouldn't the Federal government recognize them as it
recognizes any other married couple, providing them with equal protection under
the law?We have to wait and see.
DOMA was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 when he had
interaction with Monica Lewinsky on at least nine occasions from November 1995
to March 1997. It was his personal defense of marriage act trying to say he was
in support of conventional marriage while in the White House. It showed he was
a good man and wouldn't lie except to federal investigators and to the
people of the United States of America with our great ally sitting next to
him,Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini
(Arafat) watching in dismay as President Clinton said he didn't have
interactions with that lady. It all depends on what the definition of
"is" is.President Clinton is one that would like to repeal
it now since it didn't serve the purpose for why he signed it, to get the
special investigation and impeachment out of the way.It is amazing
how fast the people and nation can change their opinions with the advent of the
Internet, Twitter, Facebook and other forms of communication. The
Republican victory in House 1994 and again in 2010 shows that people can make a
difference. The Senators are chameleons.
Can anyone state a clear reason why the DOMA is constitutional and why it is
good for the country? Please, no quotes from the bible, just a concise
With the gradual indoctination of our youth in the nation's universities,
combined with the relentless obsession of the mainstream media support, it will
only be a matter of time, before gay marriage becomes legal. It's no use.
Let the slippery slope begin.And where it ends, nobody knows. Polygamy is
next. Trust me.
truthseeker55:[Civilizations have a responsibility to promote marriage
between a man and a woman as it is the glue that holds the social fabric
together...]Is that the reason that "civilization" collapsed
here in Utah, because of plural marriage?There is no proof for you
statement. None. The difference between marriage and civil unions is just
semantics.Civil Unions:Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden
(1994), Greenland and Iceland (1996), Netherlands (1997), France and Belgium
(1999), Vermont (2000), Finland (2001), Tasmania (2003).And then
some, but all of these have had same-sex civil unions for 10+ years and
civilization has not collapsed. In fact, most of these countries rank in the top
20 on most economic and human development indexes.Same-sex
Marriage:Netherlands (2000), Belgium and Ontario (2003), Massachusetts
(2004), Spain and Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway and Connecticut
(2008), Sweden (2009), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2009),
District of Columbia (2009), Mexico City (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland
(2010), Agentina (2010).And then some, but after 3 years none of
these have "collapsed".So please, provide evidence before
reporting this tired, old, and untrue statement.
Springvillepoet: The Constitution doesn't call for nine justices. It just
calls for a Supreme Court. The number of justices has varied a great deal
throughout history, as modified by Congress.
Sneaky Jimmy: The most concise argument I can think of is that the Federal
government has the right to define the scope of its own laws, and since some of
its laws relate to the question of whether people are married, it has the right
to determine for itself whether certain relationships are to be recognized as
marriages for Federal purposes.
Legal/monetary loss of benefits seems to be the loudest cry from the LGBT
population and perhaps they should receive some of the same benefits as married
men/women do. However, redefining marriage is NOT the answer.... why don't
they target changing the actual laws prohibiting their receipt of benefits (i.e.
inheritance tax, health, etc). Marriage between a man and a woman should be
protected. Any other relationship is a choice for individuals but should not
receive the same recognition.
morpunkt,I think the reason the tide has turned so quickly, is that
gays are open about themselves now. This is so different than just 10 years ago
and especially 20 years ago. Everyone knows someone who is gay, unless you seem
to be judgmental, and then they may still hide it from you!Kids can
see their mom, dad, aunt, uncle, cousin, brother, sister, or friend they grew up
with as a gay person and, because they know these people and their character,
they know that all the stereotypes and bad things that have been said about
homosexuals is wrong. When you see that, all laws discriminating against those
you love seem wrong too.It is a different world because gays are not
afraid to tell those around them that they are gay. It has made a world of
difference in the prejudice that has been shown towards gay people.If all the harsh stereotypes had been true, things might not have changed.
But most gays are not like the types dipicted by end-of-the-world predictors,
but just like everyone else.
ProudUtan: I'm not sure I understand the logic of your statement. You
seem to be saying we should take away all the legal distinctions that treat
married people differently, so that people who want same-sex marriages will stop
caring about marriage and stop asking for it. This, you say, will help us to
avoid "redefining" marriage. However, to my mind, that would be
redefining marriage, or rather, defining it out of existence as far as the
government is concerned. How would this "protect" marriage between men
it is very unpopular to write or say anything against gay marriages. However
alone and unpopular one may be in ones opinion and conviction, a gay marriage
does not and will not have, regardless of legalization, the same status a
marriage between a man and women whose children populate the world. Homosexuals
are able to adopt children who may or may not know their biological parents, but
in the case of lesbians, if pregnancy occurs it is only by male sperm.If
the father, whose sperm it is, is unknown and unknowable what knowledge or claim
have such children on its paternal father and his heritage? Mother to child -
I am your mother, child to mother, who is my father? Mother to child -
unknowable. Comforting to the lesbian mother perhaps - but confusing and
unsettling to children as they mature.
@ ProudUtanYou wrote: "However, redefining marriage is NOT the
answer.... why don't they target changing the actual laws prohibiting their
receipt of benefits (i.e. inheritance tax, health, etc). Marriage between a man
and a woman should be protected."My friend, can you please give
us what is "your" definition of marriage? I am asking for
"your" definition, because marriage have had different roles, customs
and components through out history and cultures.Marriage has never been the same
around the world at any given time.You ask for protection for the
marriage between a man and a woman. Please again, clarify for us, in what way
SSM is a threat to you and your marriage? I am very slow, so please give us some
specific facts. I really would like to understand your position and see how you
reached your conclusion.
"If the father, whose sperm it is, is unknown and unknowable what knowledge
or claim have such children on its paternal father and his heritage? Mother to
child - I am your mother, child to mother, who is my father? Mother to child -
unknowable. Comforting to the lesbian mother perhaps - but confusing and
unsettling to children as they mature."=============The same is true of an unwed mother, right? I don't see you prohibiting
them from having or raising children. In fact, 40% of children born today are
to an unwed mother.At least these children are wanted and planned
for. There are not accidents and usually there are two parents to provide love
and support for these children.
Since 1880 there have been 14 instances of the Supreme Court declaring that
marriage is a "fundamental right." We must understand that gays and
lesbians have that right just as much as do heterosexuals.I grew up
in the shadow of BYU, where my dad taught. I graduated from Provo High, then
BYU. For years I dated boys, then men; I held and kissed them, spent all my time
with them, tried to fantasize about a life with them, even got engaged twice.
I've had many men as my best friends, but I couldn't find a spark of
physical attraction for them. I prayed, fasted, went on a mission, did
everything I could to encourage God to help me feel romantic love.He
helped me, but it was to realize how much I loved women, romantically,
physically, emotionally, enough to yearn to bond with a another woman for the
rest of my life. Life's journey made sense for the first time. I
didn't have to be alone. This isn't a matter about sexual addiction,
weakness, perversion, or selfishness. It's about deep, enduring love.
Joan Watson:[If the father, whose sperm it is, is unknown and unknowable
what knowledge or claim have such children on its paternal father and his
heritage? Mother to child - I am your mother, child to mother, who is my father?
Mother to child - unknowable. Comforting to the lesbian mother perhaps - but
confusing and unsettling to children as they mature.]Sounds like you
just have a negative opinion of adoption, in general. Lesbians also adopt.
Straight parents also use sperm donors for various reasons. Many gay men are
also the biological fathers of their own children too, either from previous
relationships or by using a surrogate.The world isn't all that
cut and dry.
I am almost 60 years old and I was adopted at birth. Not only do I know nothing
about my "father"; I know nothing about my "mother." With the changes to adoption laws, I could probably mount a search, and with a
great deal of time and money, find out about them. I have chosen not to do
so.There are many, many people in this nations who do not know their
biological parents. They know the people who loved and raised them - their true
@Baccus0902 and DonBug,People are free to chose how they want to live
their lives, but that does not mean all lifestyles should be protected by law.
My views will be difficult to understand to those who do not share my deep
Christian beliefs, and they will continue to be ridiculed and challenged.
Nothing I can say to you will change your mind and vice versa. Sadly, you may
judge me to be uncompassionate for my beliefs, which is far from true.
Let's agree to disagree. I believe "that God’s commandment for
His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force, that the
sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman,
lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Marriage between man and woman is essential
to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of
matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with
complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when
founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." The Family: A
Proclamation to the World" Look it up.
ProudUtan: I didn't accuse you of being uncompassionate, and I didn't
ridicule your Chrisitan beliefs. I'm already intimately familiar with, and
in agreement with, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." What I
want to know is how you think it will help preserve traditional marriage if we
do as you suggest, by eliminating the various differnces between married and
unmarried people in the way government treats them. I don't think that
will protect marriage in any way; in fact, I think it will tend to destroy it.
I'm certainly willing to consider what you have to say, however, to try to
convince me otherwise.
Proud, I fail to see how equality in marriage for the gay population defeats the
Proclamation to the Family. A. It applies only to the LDS, and is not a
civil law for anyone.B. Many gays and lesbians (especially in Utah)
already have biological children because their family and religious leaders
strongly advocated that they marry. C. No one that I know, gay or
straight, disagrees that marriage and family are great, even sacred, and are
essential to society.D. None of us knows God's plan for every person
on earth. We don't even know if there IS a God. At most, the religious have
faith and hope. E. Whatever the edicts of religion and society, each
person must search and obey their own heart and best intentions.F. There
is no immediate nor foreseen danger of humankind becoming extinct by the failure
Most of the children I know living with Gay couples were not invitro /
inseminated / surrogated / adopted / ect., but were born in a traditional
Husband/Wife "marriage".The fact is, 50% of ALL marriages
end in a divorce, even Hetero-sexual ones.In the instances I
mentioned, the Women had custody of the children, later in life finds a
better "match", who just so happens to also be another woman.In
one case I can think of, she also had 3 children of her own (ala, Brady
Bunch)The fact remains, Marriage is an arraignment, by people
LOVE each other, who care about each other, who share everything - hopes,
dreams, goals, housing, bills, ambitions -- and struggles, hurts, success, and
disappointments, together -- not going about life alone.BTW - to
those of you who keep insisting on defining Marriage strictly by Sexual terms...
YOU are the one's dragging the institution of marriage through the
DWAYNE: : The best way to summarize this power is to say 'all states are
required to honor the acts of all other states unless a majority of all states
through their elected Representatives in congress choose to exempt such
acts."-------------Oh, I totally disagree. No where
in your quote does it say that congress can allow states from giving full faith
and credit. It merely gives them the "Manner" in which they ARE proved
and the effect thereof.Maybe only with marriage between whites and
blacks did they allow one state to disallow anothers states acts, but we know
that the SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.Why would they start the full faith clause with: "Full Faith and Credit
shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Recordas, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State."?That is a complete
sentenance. It has a period after it. It is not something congress can veto.
They can merely say how it is going to work, right?
@ JWBYou wrote:"It is amazing how fast the people and nation can
change their opinions with the advent of the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and
other forms of communication." JWB what you are decrying is
education and information. People are becoming enlightened because of these
technological advances. Yes, people are changing their minds....they are
evolving. That is good.@ ProudUtanI held deeply religious
beliefs as well. The difference is I don't take tradition anf faith at face
value. If you are honest and want to do what God wants.... do it! Just make sure
your actions do not override either of the two main commandments: "Love God
above everything else, and love your neighbor as you love yourself".Actions based on fear and/or bigotry are not what my Christ teaches me.
I was an LDS for many years (in many ways I still am), My heart still rejoices
in the Gospel and the new understanding we are getting little by little, line by
line.I certainly hope that when all this struggle is over we can all
reconcile as the brothers and sister we are.LGBT people have a lot
of practice forgiving.
Don't want gay marriage? Move to Saudi Arabia. Leave the grown up issues to
the grown ups.
The opposition to marriage equality in this country is a horse that won't
ride... lame out of the gate, and more and more people are seeing that fact.The crux of the SCOTUS dilemma is between State's rights versus
Federal authority. Even if the SCOTUS refuses to rule on Prop 8, you can bet
they will rule against DOMA, especially since the rationale for DOMA was,
according to a House of Representatives report, "to express moral
disapproval of homosexuality."It is not a legitimate purpose of
Federal Law to express "moral disapproval" of lifestyle choices of its
citizens without rational basis. There is NO rational basis for Federal
disapproval of homosexual activities, much less "moral disapproval" of
persons who identify themselves as homosexual.Even if the
overturning of Prop 8 is not endorsed by the SCOTUS, Prop 8 is dead in the
water. Public opinion has so turned against such bigoted law -- you can be
guaranteed, a contrasting Amendment proposition is already written and waiting
in the wings in California as well as numerous other States to reverse the
travesty that was Prop 8.
It's simple ... equal rights. Why can't you people grasp the notion
that everyone regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, orientation,
gender, etc should have equal rights? Why do you want to hold people down that
don't live the same way you do?Fear?
The reason why the "government" got into the business (a religious
business, mind you) of marriage in the first place is that there was money to
made by licensing marriages. Take government OUT of the equation and let couples
decide where and who they want to marry - and this all becomes a government
non-issue. Government should have no say in inheritance rights, either, as
those are private family issues. To turn all of this into "rights" of
marriage because of money and benefits - isn't that a trite shallow?
@cindyacreYou nailed it!Though it does ignore the
significant benefits of the traditinal family unit to society.
Defense of Marriage? They are not defending marriage! They are defending
discrimination and hate. If you look at it, marriage needs more protection from
heterosexuals. How many heterosexuals get divorced each year. How many children
of heterosexuals end up in broken homes? I guess that is healthy for them,
isn't it. these people destroy the institution of marriage all by
themselves and it is absurd to act like gay people are a threat! so, face it,
discrimination is what they want. I think we eventually get what we put out
there in one way or another.
Cindyacre,"...the business (a religious business, mind you) of
marriage..."Please provide proof (copyright, patent, etc.) that
marriage is a "religious business".(I am willing to believe
the "business" part about religion, but not that marriage is owned by,
invented by, or in any way the intellectual, historical, spiritual, or other
"property" of religion).
@cjb:"Their (same-sex) relationship didn't affect my
marriage..."Same sex marriages in the first step in the eventual
death of marriage. First, other aberrations will come forth wanting the same
treatment, such as polygamists. And there is no reason polygamists cannot get
the same marriage benefits. Then other combinations will emerge such as
adults/children marriages. There is just as much logic in those marriages as
there is in same sex marriage... even more. Then, whole groups of mixed sexes
will come forth demanding the same treatment. At that point the government will
exit its role in marriage altogether, relegating it to churches or to...
nothing.In order to keep marriage in this country safe and healthy,
it must be reserved for one man and one women, period.@FatherOfFour:"A donkey cannot sign a contract. But a consenting
adult can. A child cannot sign a contract, neither can a truck or the Statue of
Liberty. This is why you cannot marry a donkey, a child, or the Statue of
Liberty."Signing contracts is a function of law... and laws can
be changed with a simple vote of lawmakers.
@Lane Myer:"The Constitution DOES promise that it will treat all
citizens equally under the law."If you wish to marry, chose
someone of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all. Sounds like equal
treatment to me."Doma states that married gay couples in states
that grant gay marriage will be treated differently than other married couples
in that same state."No, no. DOMA says marriage is between a man
and a women. And all other combinations are not marriages. And federal law
trumps all state laws.@JWB:"DOMA was signed by President
Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 when he had interaction with Monica
Lewinsky..."DOMA was passed by the US Congress. Clinton's
signature to the law was incidental."President Clinton is one
that would like to repeal it now since it didn't serve the purpose for why
he signed it..."Clinton is a typical Democrat... they evolve.@Sneaky Jimmy:"Can anyone state a clear reason why the DOMA is
constitutional and why it is good for the country?"DOMA provides
equal treatment for all. Chose someone of the opposite sex to marry. Applies
to all citizens.
@LValfre:"Why can't you people grasp the notion that everyone
regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, orientation, gender, etc should
have equal rights?"Everyone has equal rights re marriage...
i.e., chose someone of the opposite sex to marry... applies to all equally...Oops!! Except for children... who can't marry... because the law
says so... a discriminatory law. I think your same-sex friends are correct.
There is discrimination in our laws since children can't marry. We need to
get that fixed.@Open Minded Mormon:"The fact remains,
marriage is an arraignment, by people who LOVE each other, who care about each
other, who share everything - hopes, dreams, goals, housing, bills, ambitions --
and struggles, hurts, success, and disappointments, together -- not going about
life alone."I feel that way about a whole group of folks.
Should I be free to marry all of them at the same time? Inquiring minds wanna
I'm against gay marriage, however what business is it of mine to tell two
consenting adults what they can or cant do? In the end we will have to answer
for OUR actions and no one else. Let the gays get married and be miserable like
everyone else. If its against God then let God deal with them when they die, if
its not than why worry. Worry about yourself and stop being meddling in other
peoples freedoms. I don't want people telling me I cant do things that may
bother them. I don't care what they think and vice versa.
The factual consequences of gay marriage: 'After 5 Years of
Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce
rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09Line:'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate
state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940,
prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.' The lowest
divorce rate...since 1940. So please, do not lie and fabricate
reasons to be against gay marriage.... and call yourself a
@Alfred --"If you wish to marry, chose someone of the opposite
sex. This applies equally to all. Sounds like equal treatment to me."**If you wish to marry, choose someone of your own race. This applies
equally to all. Sounds like equal treatment to me.**Sound
familiar?@Mr. Bean and @wrz--"Oops!! Except for
children... who can't marry... "The reasons why gay
marriage is different from polygamy or pedophilia or incest have already been
gone over ad nauseam, but in very very short form here they are once again:1. children and animals can't give informed consent. Consent is an
essential aspect of all contract law. It can not be removed from our legal
system.2. polygamy is illegal for **all**. There is no discrimination. It
also has significant, known, concrete risks, especially to women and children.
The US and Canadian courts have already proven that they know the
differences between gay marriages and polygamists. And the Scandinavian
countries that have had gay registered partnerships for upwards of 20 years now
have not had any trouble beating off the non-existent hordes of would-be
polygamists at their gates. These facts reflect reality. Your fears
@Mr. BeanPheonix, AZ"Everyone has equal rights re
marriage... i.e., chose someone of the opposite sex to marry... applies to all
equally..."Applies to heterosexuals exclusively. If you think
that's equal than you are still living in pre-1978 and pre-1964.
This isn't about love, and marriage.It's about
benefits!We're a nation of whiners, and beggars.