The Supreme Court is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). What is your opinion(s) on this issue? What are the sources of your opinion(s)?
I have just one question to ask before I try to answer this question - what exactly (and I do mean E X A C T L Y) are we trying to defend marriage from? Is the opportunity for marriage being taken away from the average American citizen? Is the prerogative to have that civil union blessed in one's church of choice being taken away? Are we being told that from this point on, marriage is not to be looked upon as a monogamous union of two people for life?
I don't know, really. I guess if any of those things will happen if same sex couples are legally allowed to pursue marriage, then I definitely think marriage needs to be defended. Thing is - I have no reason whatsoever to think that those principles of marriage will ever change or be modified. So, what are defending marriage from? Show me an actual threat or a real enemy and maybe I'll bite.
Ruled unconstitutional. I'm glad.
Btw, so proud of Sonia Sotomayor.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
So, to overturn the DOMA is wrong of course, since the term "gay marriage" is by its very definition and description an outright attack on traditional marriage. Matter of fact, the DOMA should've never even had to have been enacted, and wouldn't have had to if people would've followed common morality and our Constitution instead of twisting it all around into something unrecognizeable.
All attempts at re-defining marriage should've been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Actually, should've never even made it to the Supreme Court at all. But of course, since we have liberal activists who push, and people like Sonja Sotomayor who believes the Court should actually MAKE laws instead of judging the correctness of them via morality and the Constitution, then probably the twisting of laws will continue in favor of the liberal agenda for some time.
Chalk a big one up for the liberals. Which, later, (maybe even much later) will be a hollow victory as the consequences fall. Mankind cannot change God's laws without eventually suffering consequences from Him or indirectly from nature, just as all sin, even if forgiven eventually, still carries consequences with it in the meantime.
As marriage was polygamous (as soon as there were enough women, anyway) we must have made a major error in re-defining it to the false one woman-one man concept promoted by (most) organized Christian religion.
Are you ready for your "partner" wives to move in yet?
Any hopeful "partner wives" can dream about kissing my elbow. LOL.
Do you not understand that even in "Bible days" and in the Bible, many people did things that weren't right? Just because an event is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that it's condoned by God.
Just because the "Church" (or any religion like Mormonism or whatever) or even the Kings in the Bible had a specific doctrine or set of habits or whatever at any given time, doesn't mean it was right. Matter of fact, that's part of the wisdom we obtain through the Bible---------the knowledge of how fallible we are, and how to eventually get on the right track so that we can be saved.
Well, I just kind of went with the fact that nearly all the VIP's - those chosen and approved of by God - were polygamists. We don't hear about the little guys too much, of course, but can probably assume they were too. If they could - it obviously takes money to support that many wives.
I seems that if we're going to talk "traditional marriage" then it should be traditional, not some johnny-come-lately change.
I couldn't grab the link to this article so copied in its entirety.
The Bible is not the law of the land in this country.
More to the point, as Wilderness states, the Bible does NOT say marriage is only between one man and one woman. No matter what Michele Bachmann claims.
"A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed in a local paper this week, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The joint editorial was written by Hector Avalos, Robert R. Cargill and Kenneth Atkinson and published in the Des Moines Register on Sunday. The men teach at Iowa State University, University of Iowa and University of Northern Iowa, respectively.
"The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy."
The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory, noted the scholars. They stated in their column that a primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, Avalos, Cargill and Atkinson point out that various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Iowa University Professor Robert R. Cargill said the column was the brainchild of his colleague Hector Avalos, who suggested local scholars put together an "educated response" to the often-touted claim that the Bible defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman. "[T]hat's not the only thing the Bible says," Cargill told HuffPost.
He explained that it is obvious to scholars (and some religious leaders) that the Bible endorses a wide range of relationships. But he noted, however, that professors are "terrified" of the potential backlash that might result from opening a dialogue about these relationships. Cargill also noted that the initial response to the Register column has included its fair share of vitriol.
Ultimately, said Cargill, a Biblical "argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable. We all know this, but very few scholars are talking about it, because they don't want to take the heat."
He suggested that academics who continue to be cowed by a strident opposition do a disservice to their communities.
"Most people aren't dumb, they want to make an informed decision" on religiously charged questions, Cargill said. "If scholars aren't talking to them, they have to rely on talk show hosts and pundits, and that's not the most reliable source of information."
Cargill also realizes that there are some people he may never be able to convince.
Many politicians have made a career out of using the Bible to justify opposition to hot-button topics like same-sex marriage or abortion. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, told a crowd of evangelicals in April that Americans cannot "retreat from our values and fail to make the case on issues like marriage -- because it is one man, one woman -- because God said it is."
Cargill said Bachman and her like-minded colleagues use a strategy he calls "cherry picking" to appeal to their base.
"Politicians who use the Bible aren't necessarily interested in the truth or the complexity of the Bible," he said. "They are looking for one ancient sound bite to convince people what they already believe."
Anyone who argues that "the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage ... haven't take the time to read all of it," he added.
I believe everything I read on the internet. I'm a French model. Bon jour.
The article you copied and pasted was from Huffpost Gay Voices.
I've read the actual article these guys wrote. It's total crap.
Your opinions are total crap. What do you have against applying the Constitution to every U.S. citizen?
I am still not understanding---and I never will, why the Bible becomes the "gospel" when dealing with gay and lesbian people and marriage, but is readily and conveniently discarded when dealing with just about everything else including other things related to marriage.
After all, the Bible precludes divorce.
And, the Bible's sense of the parameters of marriage are entirely inconsistent with our modern American sense of marriage---including of heterosexual and/or so-called "traditional" marriage.
Where is the mandate that brothers marry their widowed sisters-in-law?
Where is the mandate for arranged marriages that link tribes?
Where is the mandate that the virgin victim of rape marry her rapist?
Where is the mandate that as a "reward" of war, the victorious soldiers take all female virgins as sex slaves?
Why not just say the truth?
The Bible and religion are NOT motivating animosity towards homosexuals or same-sex marriage.
A deep and lingering and particularly generational distaste for homosexuality itself---and the things conjured in the minds of some heterosexuals as to the private/personal conduct of homosexuals is the problem.
The problem is NOT Biblical prohibition, but the "ick" factor.
After all, be honest as your Bible says "Thou shalt not lie."
You know that hub of mine you just posted a comment on (all he said that it was funny)?
I got called homophobic by a gay because of the pics on that hub. Really.
I got all those pics from other hubs here and wrote the hub because I got ticked off after HP flagged one of my football hubs for a pic of a young lady wearing a Steeler terrible towel as a miniskirt. You know, mature content. So I thought I'd post some pics already on HP that are more mature and see if I get flagged.
Now don't anybody say I'm off topic here. I'm pointing out how easily some throw around the word homophobic and words like it.
HubPages treats us like we are a bunch of Sunday school kids. They have turned off ads on a couple of my fairly high traffic, humorous Hubs. "Just started masturbatin'", for example.
I haven't read that one, Ralph.
Is it from the perspective of a male fetus, as
dictated to a male member of Congress (who we're told is an ob/gyn -- go figure )??
Ha! Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O4XqvO0Eec
Thanks really funny. Would like to share on Facebook but I'd probably get de-friended by some people.
Did you mean guy or gay? Was that a Freudian slip?
Are you talking to me, Rad Man?
I meant gay. A gay guy, although some tell me that is somewhat redundant.
Gay means gay guy. I can understand your confusion, since you are an expert on lesbians only.
Incidentally, I can go get the gay or gay guy's post for exactly what he said. I don't need to make anything up. I got enough truth to work with.
It's infinitely more sources than you have posted for anything.
If you like that source so much, maybe you'd like to debate the article those guys wrote with me. Or maybe somebody else would.
So now that the right has just received this bash across the chops, what is next? I hear that what cannot be accomplished with 'big government' at the federal level should now be fought in the varied state legislatures. Imagine, a patchwork of states, some allowing same sex marriage and many not. I am afraid even with this strategy, the rightwinger will find himself in court again as it has been well documented that no nation can exist half slave and half free..... So what would be the status of same sex couples in red states where the practice is prohibited, do their marriages become invalid? In time, the court will have to rule on that as well....
All the more trouble, trouble, trouble for the rightwinger in the scheme of things!
Yes the DOMA should be overturned, but it's only the beginning. Even with the current ruling, if you are gay you cannot: adopt a child in 7 states, make medical decisions for your partner or have visitation rights while your partner is in hospital in some states, become a scout leader, legally defend yourself against getting fired for being gay in 29 states. That's idiotic and needs to change also.
Judge stops deportation hearing minutes after high court strikes down DOMA
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/26/judge-st … down-doma/
So...It is not just about the money. :-)
Everyone is debating the wrong argument. The read issue, as I have written on, is "why is the government involved at all in the marriage issue?" The answers to that question is the true villainy. There should be no government involvement or legal connotation associated with marriage at all.
And THAT I agree with 100 percent.
As long as that means that every couple gets the exact same considerations (i.e. if a male-female couple gets a certain tax deduction, so should a male-male, female-female).
If there is discrimination involved, then I think there should be penalties.
You miss the point. There should be NO legal attachment to marriage. No need for a license, as that denotes that marriage is illegal without government approval. No tax connections for any marriage. Marriage should be decided by the individuals getting married and their respective churches or other organizations. If a church wishes to only marry one man to one woman, then that should be their right. If another wants to perform a ceremony for 2 women or 2 men, then that is their right.
But, under no circumstances should there be any legal status to marriage and that would include taxes. If taxes are the consideration that you are looking for, then we should discuss simplifying the tax code, not redefining marriage.
Wow, are you suggesting that only churches or clergy should be able to marry? If you can't find a church or clergy to marry you, you're out of luck?
I think that would be peachy! Enrollment in liberal churches would skyrocket! Christianity would be redefined in a generation. It would be the death of the Christian right.
Actually, historically, the Christian church has seen it's biggest revivals during times of the worst persecution. So, it would probably grow stronger. But, that historical sidebar aside, what is more important is that no one would be forced to to perform any ceremony they didn't want to perform or denied the ability to perform the services that they desired to perform. This would apply to either Christian and non-Christian organizations.
I don't understand. No one is being forced to perform any services against their will. I would object to that strenuously.
However there are many churches that do have their hands tied to not perform the services. So I guess that's accurate.
What churches cannot perform services that they want to? You are confusing granting legal status versus performing a service or ritual.
That's actually a pretty good point.
Some churches are being denied the ability to perform legal weddings. No churches are being forced to perform any ceremonies they don't want to, legal or ritual.
See, the problem is the concept of "legal marriage". Why is a marriage a legal entity? Why are all marriages ILLEGAL without permission (license) from the government? There is a reason.
Simple, because there are times where it has to be a legal entity for things to function correctly.
If you would like to change every one of those instances to require lay contracts only. I'm golden. You just can't.
I'm cool with replacing legally married with common-law partnership if it means that common-law partnership is treated the same in these instances...
Rad Man, Do you think anyone would be unable to find someone to perform some kind, any kind for that matter, of ceremony for a price? I think there are more then enough people and organizations out there to perform any type of ceremony one would want. That's the beauty of a free-market capitalistic system.
Again, I am stating that there should be no legal standing to marriage.
And I'm also cool with that...
However there are certain circumstances that have to have a designation of marriage-if indeed that person is married.
Survivorship is one.
Insurance is another.
Parenting/adoption is another.
Unless, you are saying no one's spouse should receive any insurance benefits... receive any property upon death of the other spouse... or be entitled to any parental rights.
No one's spouse should be entitled to visit them in "family only" floors of hospitals. No one's spouse should be able to move to the US as part of citizenship. No one's spouse should be allowed community property... No one's spouse should be given family leave. No one's spouse should be given immunity in having to testify against the other spouse. No one's spouse should receive pension benefits. etc.
Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that property can be shared between any 2 (or more) adults whether they are married or not. Legal contracts are set up everyday. Insurance can be purchased by who ever wants to purchase it. We should have a reform on insurance that allows insurance companies to trade across State lines in order to bring down cost through greater competition and tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and reduce cost.
All the things you listed can be done through legal channels without changing the definition of marriage or forcing any private organization/church etc to go against their beliefs.
I'm with you here and I'm not.
The problem being the refusal of insurance agencies to pay out on benefits to same-sex marriages. If laws were enacted to punish for blatant discrimination. Cool. Insurance companies are not really private institutions. They provide a necessary service, like utilities and rental properties. They therefore are held to a different standard than Bob's Bait Shop. Are you saying that businesses should be allowed to deny vital services to those based on sexual preference? Because by not offering the exact same benefits to gay marriages, that's what they are doing. That's the reason that anti-discrimination laws apply to them, to prevent that.
I'm cool with completely private organizations that provide non-vital services/products to do whatever they like.
I also disagree that things like parental rights can be accomplished through non-legal channels. Especially since divorce proceedings are an excessively legal channel and are governed by well, the government. I see no way of privatizing custody disputes.
I also see no way of privatizing spousal privilege in court cases, except to remove it all together. Which means your wife could be forced to testify against you in court about things you said in the bedroom. Now that DOES erode marriage.
I also see no way to privatize immigration of spouses from different countries.
Survivorship is iffy... Wills only go so far. Pensions are also unable to be privatized completely, as government pensions with survivorship come into play. Unless you are saying organizations like the U.S. Army should abandon pensions and spousal health benefits. Because that would kind of suck.
Any private company (non-government) or organization should be able to hire, fire and serve whoever they choose. If a company doesn't want to serve white bald guys with goatee, then that would be their right, as it is THEIR company. Someone could choose to hire only one-legged, bald headed midget Asians for their restaurant and only serve red haired black women with lisps...it would be a stupid business model, but it is their capital and their company.
No one has RIGHT to insurance, a rental unit or anything of the sort. You can not be denied these things by the government, through legislation, based on any "differential" factor, but you should not force any person to offer or deny service or goods to who they do or do not wish to do business with. Read my article on discrimination and the other on marriage. It's really quite simple.
As to survivorship, hospital visits, wills etc. We need. if anything, is legal reform to allow anyone to leave anyone else anything they chose. A person should be allowed to list anyone as a legal representative, visitor etc, and do so without having to have the government involved in marriage. The argument should not be "how does the government regulate marriage?" , but rather, "why does the government regulate marriage?"....
No, actually it isn't simple.
There is the perfect ideal and then the ideal in practice.
By saying that any private institution can deny services to whomever they want, you reach the point where people are dying because of discrimination. It sounds peachy to let free-economy rule with complete freedom... until your wife dies on the sidewalk outside of a hospital because she is a woman. Or until my son freezes to death because the owner of an electricity company doesn't like blacks.
So what happens when your private hospital (who can deny services to whomever they choose for piss and giggles) chooses not to accept a patient with no health insurance (because the insurance company can deny services to whomever they choose)?
You still didn't answer me about child custody disputes, government pensions, legal protections and that such. Just a reminder. I'm sure you meant to instead of hanging up on the one portion of my question that you had a canned response and a hub about.
Any hospital, in today's world, that would deny services for a dying woman, would be a target for media scrutiny and both doctors and patients would turn their expertise and needs to a competing hospital or other healthcare provider. As competition for both insurance and healthcare itself increase, we would have more options and more providers to choose from. It happens every time. Look at the car insurance options and price structures available now. More choices, options and pricing structures.
Child custody would be determined the same basic way it is now. There would be court decisions based on the needs of the child. I believe that both parents are responsible for the care of the child, including monetarily in the case of an absentee parent of either gender.
First, I believe we should be limiting the amount of government jobs, especially at the federal level, as the federal government is bloated beyond it's Constitutionally enumerated powers and it's 10th Amendment restriction. Secondly, IF there are to be governmental pensions, which i contend there shouldn't be, then they should be paid as a pension to the person that help the position and to them only, regardless of whether their choice of "partners" is male or female. I'm for equal restrictions of the federal and State government regardless of gender.
No the free market does not morally self correct, if it did then CocaCola would not still be one of the biggest companies in the world after destroying whole villages by destroying the water supply and being implicated in the murder of union leaders, Chiquita Banana would not be the biggest banana company in the world despite toppling a democratic government and aiding a massacre and the countless companies responsible for overfishing, environmental destruction etc. etc. would not be succeeding not to mention Nike and Apple running brutal sweatshops, Nestle using product grown with slave labor, Arch Coal having the highest black lung rate in the first world and countless other things.
Again the real world proves it doesn't work.
The free-market also includes people exposing these things and bringing awareness to the people. It includes people, like yourself, refusing to purchase products and services made by companies they disagree with. And, it includes getting government out of un-holy alliances with corporations...I am for capitalism, not corporatism. And there is a big difference.
Out of curiosity, do you own any Apple products, drink or eat foods grown or produced by any company engaged in any "questionable" practices? Do you only purchase only "Made in the USA" clothing or do your clothes have made in "somewhere" else?
Unregulated free-market economies produce monopolies. Unregulated monopolies don't care if their practices are exposed.
I also feel it's semi-hypocritical to say the Government shouldn't offer pensions to entice employees but businesses can.
Corporatism, crony capitalism, produces monopolies. not free markets. There is a difference.
It's not hypocritical at all...as private companies, can, but don't have to offer any fringe benefits to entice better and more employees. It is a good decision from a business standpoint, but should not be, in anyway, mandated. Government jobs should be limited and if the position is actually needed and within the purview of a limited government, then those individual positions can, upon a vote of the people, be allowed to offer that benefit package. Government jobs, for the most part, should not be careers, but instead, a place to serve for a specific period of time and for a specific end.
I would set the Armed force apart from career politicians. And, the Army is a Constitutionally supported aspect of the federal government. Most other things that the federal government are not. I am a strong supporter of our military, not always of how they are utilized, but of it as a whole.
I believe in retirement benefits for military personnel, with a possible sliding scale based on years of service and combat versus peace/domestic service. I believe that private life insurance should be obtained by military personnel, so that they can use competition of the free-market to get the best rates. I believe health insurance, not health care, should be available to servicemen, but that they should have a percentage of their pay that they can invest in private insurance so they can decide which they want. Healthcare, different then health insurance should be provided to active service personnel and their families as p[art of their compensation.
Politicians should have to acquire their own insurance in the fee-market.
I would agree that anyone active in the military should have coverage for them and their wife/husband and children while on base or serving overseas. This is one area where the same-sex partner issue would need to be addressed and looked over. It would be discussion worth having. The issue becomes, in this case and in general, what constitutes the partner status. Would a polygamist be entitled to have coverage for 2 or more wives/husbands?
In the private sector the issue is easier. If a company wants to offer insurance to same-sex partners, or multiple partners, then they should be able to offer that incentive if they can find an insurance company that offers that option. It should not, just as the offering of insurance in general, be mandated that any business or organization offer this or any insurance.
And I apologize for nailing you down to a specific.
The point I think I was trying to make is that as long as there are specifics, there needs to be a general definition. While I don't think the Government should have any role whatsoever in who anyone chooses to marry, there does need to be a generally agreed upon definition of what that marriage is within that government.. Even if only to operate within it's own self.
The military is one of those places. I'm sure we could argue down to other points... even if it's as simple and innocuous as defining it for the census.
Now, what that definition affects is -right now- quite a lot of things. Theoretically, many of those things are likely unnecessary (although we might argue on which ones). However, that definition of what a marriage is will always affect SOMETHING.
My concern is that when it does affect that SOMETHING it should effect it for all individuals or none. It should be equal.
Then the argument of what's considered equal needs to be settled. For me, a gay marriage is equal to a straight marriage and that's the standard that I'd like to be applied to the situations where the definition does matter.
Hence this whole conversation...
I can think of no other area, other than those putting their lives on the line, where I would have complete medical coverage as a mandatory issue. In all other circumstances I would opt for the private acquiring of healthcare/health insurance, whether individually or through an employer if that employer decides to offer it.
Fair enough. And for the ease of argument... let's say that the military (and I'm also assuming police, firefighters etc) maybe that IS the only place where healthcare is an issue. Healthcare isn't the only issue. It seems a shame to get stuck on it, so I'll give it too you.
Let's talk about spousal privilege in courtroom settings. This is actually a fifth amendment issue.
For the justice system (which I assume is an acceptable government function to most libertarians-barring the extreme anarchists) to work properly, the fifth amendment needs to have marriage defined so as to identify spousal privilege. This falls under the same umbrella as attorney client privilege and doctor-patient confidentiality.
Do you think that they should amend those 5th amendment rights to include no spousal privilege?
Why, are not all humans created equal and allowed equal rights? Does the barber not get his life saving heart surgery because he can't afford it? Why privatize healthcare and allow a few to get rich on the needs of many?
Rad Man, Healthcare has historically be a private venture. A person seeks a degree in medicine, set up shop and takes on patients. Historically, on could offer a chicken, a pig, a part of a crop, gold, money or other items of value for said services. Then it became more customary to exchange in money as a form of market driven commerce. Then as insurances, subsidies and government run social programs began to infiltrate the market, it became increasingly difficult to keep prices lower due to regulations, taxes and the lopsided payment from government programs.
But, beyond that, no one has the RIGHT to another man's labor without just compensation as determined by the one offer the goods or services. We have a name for the act of taking one's labor without just compensation...slavery. And, likewise for taking goods without just compensation...theft. You do not, nor do I, have the RIGHT to have a doctor treat us. If we were to return to a true free-market system, there would be far less people going without medical treatment because there would be competition and there would not be the effects of corporatism.
We don't have to "return" to a true free-market system. Anyone is welcome to
go see the doctor of their choice and pay directly. Bypass insurance.
Urgent Care is a perfect example.
Mental health therapy is another.
Some psychiatrists do not take insurance either.
No insurance = pay what they ask. Or don't get treated by them.
Total free market.
Now, if the doctor is in a hospital setting, they DO have an obligation, under the Hippocratic oath to treat everyone who shows up at the door.
Insurance or no. Ability to pay or no.
Oh sorry, perhaps your are unaware that I'm Canadian and Canadians enjoy FREE heath care. Is it free? No, we pay with taxes, but we are treated equally and without someone making a crapload of money by selling us insurance. You know the whole all people are created equal thingy? You want to talk about freedom? Freedom is not being afraid to loose a job or start your own company because you are afraid of loosing your healthcare. Me and my wife have been self employed for almost twenty years with three kids. Not very well self employed, but well enough. Freedom?
Because of government regulations and insurance issues, many doctors can not or will not accept patients without insurance.
The in ability to turn someone away from the emergency room is due to laws, not the adherence to the Hippocratic Oath. While many doctors would adhere to it because of their belief in the oath, it is not why they CAN'T not treat.
The 5th Amendment is as follows "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" Where does it mention spouses, whether other or same sex? The Amendment was written, as the other 9 were, to protect the individual.
It is a ruling of the Ninth Circuit, not the Constitution or a law passed by Congress, that gave us the spousal exclusion for testimony, that they might not be compelled to give testimony against their spouse. It does not take away the spouses right to testify if they so choose and the court said, “the marital communications privilege must be narrowly construed because it obstructs the truth seeking process.” I personally believe that the courts were wrong on this point, in as much as, the finding of facts in a criminal case, especially that of violence, theft and other actions against another individuals life and liberty, should be paramount. That being said, if the courts findings (again, not a law) are to stand, then, if the same-sex partner was in the relationship and living with the accused at the time of the crime, and they were still in such an arrangement at the time of said testimony, then it should hold for them as well. But, again, I don't necessarily agree with the court's findings.
Not exactly, there are actually some cases where the accused spouse can invoke privilege and the other spouse cannot testify because of it... but that's neither here nor there.
But you are right, case law did define the privilege but it defined it under the fifth amendment... so it's considered a fifth amendment right. Most rights work that way though.
My main concern was not in the validity of the law but in the equal application. If you believe that gay spouses have the same application of process as straight spouses under the circumstances, then we're cool.
Again, if the court ruling stands, then under the parameters I set above, it would have to be observed. I still contend that it is a improper expansion of the the 5th Amendment, and that those court decision occurred after the 1930's licensing issues that I alluded to earlier and have written about previously.
Just because you own something does not mean you have the right to do whatever you like with it, the provision of services impacts the populace as a whole and is thus not an independent entity, denial of service and employment has serious consequences for the victims of it. Similarly marriage affects children, court cases, pensions, who gets left things in the case of a death without a will and financial separation issues.
Several countries, most countries in fact, had non administrated marriages , it was a disaster, women were left destitute, children were denied the right to see one of their parents, when people died without a will deciding who should receive things was even more complicated and costly, citizenship for partners became a complete nightmare etc. etc.
As with most of these libertarian ideals, they sounds fine in theory, very utopian, but they were tried and were a miserable failure to the point that people supported getting rid of them not just in one country but all around the world. To that reality libertarians are just left with the very lame attempt to paint this as a sinister conspiracy by government to gain more power rather than what it was, inferior systems are replaced by superior systems via trial and error.
Josak, do you know that up until the 1930's there was no licensing requirements for marriage in the U.S.? Do you know why they were instituted? It was to deny inter-ethnic marriages. It was a form of government control. Any two or more adults can enter into a contract concerning property, wills etc without being married.
Not true at all, government recognition of marriage dates back to before the creation of the US and all the way through US history, in some states marriage license shad to be produced post marriage if they were required in others a marriage license was require dot be presented from the beginning. Of course marriage licenses were used as a way to prevent interracial marriage, not that this is at all relevant to this discussion.
Yup people can but often they do not, that is just the way people are, many people die without a will etc. and even that does not address things like residential and citizenship rights etc.
You can not get married without a license. You must have government permission to get married. That is a fact. Government should not decide whether you can get married, as marriage should not be the concern of government, nor should it be a legal entity from a government control point of view.
It is relevant to the discussion, as we are discussing the government's role in marriage. If there were no legal status, from a governmental standpoint, then there would be no argument about gay marriage, polygamy or one man-one woman marriage, as it would be up the individual church, organization or other religious organization as to whether they would perform a wedding or other ceremony.
Um, I'm sorry. What sources could possibly be needed for this kind of topic?
1) Gay couples are just people who have chosen to date each other, like heterosexual couples
2) We heterosexuals have done a number ourselves on this supposedly "sacred institute of marriage." Just look at divorce and re-marriage stats.
3) A gay couple getting married literally has nothing to do with someone's personal definition of anything. If someone wants marriage to be so beautiful and sacred, then they should treat their own spouse with the utmost love, care and respect, and let other people worry about their relationships.
4) Gay people pay the same taxes, and are literally exactly the same as every other American citizen except for the fact that they are gay. Where is there any clearer example of discrimination besides when they did it to my ancestors because they were black?
I know, you'd think it would be common sense wouldn't you?
Another deceptively worded piece of trash legislation out of Congress.
I'm surprised that Bill Clinton signed it, although I seem to recall there was
Anyway, hooray for SCOTUS for striking it down. It is flat-out wrong that
legally married same-sex couples would be denied the same federal benefits as male-female married couples.
Not sure what the ramifications would be for our federal coffers or for taxpayers,
but maybe it's time to stop discriminating against single people or partnered but not married people? If we are all equal, why do married people catch the tax breaks?
... just sayin'
Mighty Mom you said, "Not sure what the ramifications would be for our federal coffers or for taxpayers,"
You must be a Democrat.
Obviously, if there are over 1,100 federal benefits that legally same-sex marrieds are now eligible for, somebody is going to pay for it.
This one woman in the DOMA case alone is now owed $360.000 by the federal government.
Let's take Social Security, an "institution" already in dire financial trouble according to some. So now a man married to a man (or vice-versa) can collect the retirement benefits of the other spouse when that person dies.
Do you suppose Social Security has been funded for that possibility? That's only one of over 1,100 federal benefits that are affected.
Cut out .001% of the fraud in SS and you'll have enough to fund every gay couple for their entire life, not just their retirement.
As far as the other benefits, well, that's what the whole thing is about, isn't it? Fairness and equity. If it means the rest of the nation has to cough up another $10 per year so that a select group isn't singled out to pay all the bills I'm OK with that.
Wilderness, do you have some economic model you can provide to support what you said regarding the cost of funding same-sex marriage? Do you have specific recommendations to eliminate fraud from Social Security?
How about this suggestion:
It would appear to me that this same-sex marriage business is going to go state-by-state. We could have some states like California where same-sex marriage was not legal, then it was legal, then it was illegal, and then it was not legal. As of today, it is legal, but who knows about tomorrow.
So it would appear likely that we the people, as it should be, are going to be able to vote on same-sex marriage. Every person who votes in support of same-sex marriage should be assessed a $10 fee, or whatever the appropriate amount is calculated to be to fund the benefits that are to be paid because of same-sex marriage. Does that work for you?
It certainly does not. To charge someone for being homosexual, OR to charge someone for promoting and voting for equality for all is NOT what this country is about.
Does the phrase including the immortal words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." ring a bell with you? Nowhere in that entire document is there a single hint that some people are less equal or more responsible for the needs of the country or of it's people.
It is something that those with a desire to repress or demonize others need to learn. We are all equal. Heterosexuals aren't better, Christians aren't better, and certainly those that try to force their religious beliefs onto others aren't better.
Thanks.I was hoping for a reaction like yours, although I didn’t think it would come so quickly, and I would have to expand upon my suggestion.
That’s the word I was looking for, or one like it – demonize - and you used it in two different posts.
So the advocates of same-sex marriage like yourself demonize the opponents of same, and vice-versa. Yesterday the Supreme Court vote on DOMA was 5-4. In the majority opinion, the opponents of same-sex marriage are demonized. And then in the minority opinion, the majority opinion itself is demonized.
A whole lot of demonizing going on. What does demonize mean? Is this the work of Satan?
At least you used the word “demonize” instead of “ick.”
How can anyone argue with your logic and fairness and charm?
Now you're scaring me, MM - we're usually on opposite sides of the fence. Almost as bad as John Holden and I.
This is a subject that really raises my ire (I was apparently banned for comments on another thread last week). Of all the ways we as a people try to control and/or demonize someone a little different this one is in the forefront. It is possibly the worst we have to fight right now.
I'm not really sure how to interpret your argument. The initial interpretation is incredibly weak. You seem to saying that because we have no money, we shouldn't give gay couples the same rights straight couples receive.
The other interpretation isn't much better because it's attacking SS.
The obvious solution to this is to stop spending on unnecessary wars and make the wealthy pay on SS above 100,000.
"Let's take Social Security, an "institution" already in dire financial trouble according to some. So now a man married to a man (or vice-versa) can collect the retirement benefits of the other spouse when that person dies."
Here you seem to be arguing that the structure of SS is wrong, so extending that to same-sex couples would be wrong too. This doesn't make you sound like you are supporting outright discrimination against same-sex couples anymore; it' just makes you a right-winger who is raging against the social safety net. I believe people should be able to live in old age with dignity, even though they are no longer able to work.
Obviously, I'd disagree on either interpretation.
Sooner, I didn’t bring this issue up. I merely responded to a concern of a person whose political leanings I might guess are closer to yours than mine. So can the right-wing crap and sell it for fertilizer.
That’s why nothing much ever gets done. It all becomes partisanship instead of finding solutions to problems.
Mighty Mom said, “Not sure what the ramifications would be for our federal coffers or for taxpayers, but maybe it's time to stop discriminating against single people or partnered but not married people? If we are all equal, why do married people catch the tax breaks?”
What do you think about what she said? Giving a tax break to people who are living together but not married since they are being discriminated against?
Every American who pays taxes should be concerned about how the benefits that have just been awarded to same-sex married are going to be paid. A really big bill is in the mail.
Ending unnecessary wars is a wonderful suggestion. And you have just the plan for doing that, right?
No, a really tiny bill is in the mail. Given that less than 5% of people are gay, and an even lower percentage will marry, followed by a lower drop yet in the number of gay marriages that make it to retirement age, the bill is a very small portion of what SS spends on retirement funding.
"Sooner, I didn’t bring this issue up. I merely responded to a concern of a person whose political leanings I might guess are closer to yours than mine. So can the right-wing crap and sell it for fertilizer."
Your other comments about homosexual couples on this thread very much show that, at least on the issue of gay marriage, you are extremely right-wing.
You also refused to respond to my point about SS taxes over 100,000, which is currently the limit. http://www.ncsu.edu/project/calscommblo … _secu.html
You also didn't answer about the wars. Do you support our foreign entanglements abroad, or do you believe we should play a smaller role? The lock box has been used for many things, including these wars. http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatt … rust-fund/ (and this piece is written from a conservative POV, and advocates personal accounts on the second page).
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … budget.php
Do homosexuals not pay in to those systems?
Giving up slavery was bad for the economy too. Sometimes giving up advantages you get through the oppression of others is just something we have to do. And perhaps the first step to a fair and even tax and benefit system where all people are considered equally regardless of marital status.
psycheskinner you said, "Giving up slavery was bad for the economy too.”
I’m not sure I would agree with that.
While the South certainly suffered economically due to the end of slavery and other aspects of the war, the North thrived, industrially speaking.
As one issue pertaining to your conclusion, what effect did former slaves moving to the North and adding to the labor supply to fuel rapid industrialization have?
I’d need much more information to agree with your statement.
I don’t think that there is any question than paying benefits to more people is going to cost the taxpayers more, and the problem is going to be compounded by the fact that the additional monies have not been planned for.
From what I have read it seems like this ruling only will effect California and the Prop. 8 decision. So I guess they are all for democracy and the rules of law, except when they're not.
That being said, let them marry, who cares? And while we are at it let's allow polygamy too since that will now be argued as a persecuted minority. If we have religious freedom, then let the fundamentalist Mormons do it the way their religion says it should be, they should have the right to marry too. And as many times as they like. Same same.
As long as they do not try to force churches, of any stripe, to go against their beliefs and be forced to let same sex marriages be performed on their sacred grounds, I say let them marry.
My support is conditional on the above. Violate that and I will quickly change my tune.
This is not an economic horse-trading exercise, it is a matter of basic human rights. I am confident a majority of people in every state in the union will eventually agree. That is the direction all the polls are going.
Most human rights were recognized when the majority of people in some states would have voted against it. That is an indictment, not a justification.
The very idea that any person would leave people dying from lack of spouse insurance, or torn from their partners bedside as they die, or denied the right to be listed on their kid's birth certificate, or lose their house because they can't directly inherit it, because someone would rather have an extra $10 is... well if I said what I think of that I might get banned from this forum.
Is it fair that ex-spouses can get SS survivor benefits under some circumstances but not others?
Did you know that more than one divorced spouse can collect survivor benefits from the same man (or, I suppose, woman)?
But if you remarry before the age of 50 you lose your survivor benefits from your ex spouse?
Is the an incentive or a disincentive to marriage?
That is just one minor example of how convoluted and arbitrary some of the SS rules are.
Look into it some time.
Maybe they will simplify things as they add in equality that has too long been denied same-sex spouses.
Oooh, an economic argument. Same sex marriage is going to cost us money.
Here's some fun figures for you.
In New York City, it's estimated that the rush of weddings following legalization made various people $260 million dollars. 200,000 people have traveled to New York to attend wedding receptions.
The Williams Institute at UCLA has given a guess that Minnesota, with a smaller population, will benefit to the tune of $42 million that would not otherwise have been spent. The same institution is pegging $88 million for Washington, adding about $8 million in tax revenue.
The average cost of a wedding in this country is $25,656 - and that's for people who hold their wedding locally. What about couples who are going to travel TO a marriage equality state, with all of their entourage, to get married?
And you guys are complaining about a drop in the social security ocean. Economists agree that extending marriage rights to same sex couples is good for the economy. I suspect it will come out even if not slightly in the black.
I don’t doubt what you said. The subject of this thread is DOMA and what the Supreme Court did decide yesterday is that same-sex married couples can collect federal benefits. A question was raised about the economic impact of these federal benefits, which I responded to.
The most important federal benefit of the more than 1,100 involved would be Social Security. None of this state money you are talking about will be going to Social Security. Republicans and Democrats are working on proposals to fix Social Security, so I guess it’s broke. Now some say the additional amount will be insignificant. I have heard estimates of $350 million to $400 million for the first year. Millions have a way of turning into billions.
The government repeatedly tells us not to worry, this or that that is being changed, but it’s not going to cost you anything. I just saw a poll and article today that said “66 percent worried about their health care under ObamaCare” that reported among other things that 58% of voters favor repealing all or some of the law. Okay, that poll is from Fox News. I wasn’t watching Fox News, I swear. I don’t want to be demonized. I saw it in a news feed I get that included articles on numerous other subjects.
The government made some changes to benefits for veterans that is being called not just a fiasco but a scandal. Lowman Henry of the Lincoln Institute said regarding this matter, “But the biggest scandal of all can be found at the Veteran’s Administration, where an average of 53 men and women who have served this nation die each day waiting for bureaucrats to process the benefits they have earned. The backlog at the VA now numbers more than 851,000 cases. Worse, the backlog is growing rather than shrinking.”
I would add regarding the last matter I mentioned, I personally am more worried about veterans than I am same-sex married couples. But hey, that’s just me. I am entitled to my opinion without being demonized, in my opinion. Please refer to the other posts I just made about the word demonized. Get behind me, Satan! No wait, that might be considered a homophobic slur.
For the record: Some same-sex couples include veterans. And now, those couples will be able to enjoy many benefits afforded to the spouses and children of veterans.
For the record: Same-sex couples will now be liable for federal income taxes are MARRIED (whether filing separately or jointly) and this will, for most couples, INCREASE their tax bills. In addition, same-sex couples who are married will now need to acknowledge this on FASFA forms (applications for federal student aid for higher education) which, again for most couples, will result in lower financial aid awards for their children.
My sense is that everyone who is against same-sex marriage and/or upset with the fact that DOMA was overturned should just finally "come out" and be entirely honest. Your real problem with same-sex marriage is not economic, but as George Tekei noted today in an op-ed piece, the so-called "ICK" factor in play.
You think gay and think "ick".
The Supremes got one right for a change. A small step for the Supremes and a giant step for mankind.
Yes, but every person that gets paid - wedding planners, dress designers, tuxedo hire firms, cake makers...all pay federal taxes and social security taxes.
It's a basic law that when the economy is strengthened, the government gets more money. That's absolutely basic.
Thank you for reminding me.
I'm taking a little break right now from working to pay taxes to finance benefits for same-sex married couples. No need to thank me, I'm happy to do it.
And due to all the money I'm making , I'm sending a check to NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). They have rights too, you know.
Bet you are happy to accept benefits paid for out of taxation on same sex married couples though aren't you!
Yeah, I'm paying taxes to fund religious organizations so they can spread their homophobia.
Not for much longer.
One of the items on the LGBT activist agenda is to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. Or lose their tax-exempt status.
What exactly do you think the word homophobia means? Is everyone who opposes same-sex marriage homophobic? If not, what does the person, church, or other organization have to do in order for you to label them as homophobic?
Really? Hadn't seen that one on anything but homophobic websites.
Good on them, anything that makes churches lose tax-exempt is wonderful. Where do I sign up?
"Is everyone who opposes same-sex marriage homophobic?"
"One of the items on the LGBT activist agenda is to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. Or lose their tax-exempt status."
I haven't heard that, and I've followed the issue fairly closely. Just curious what's your source?
If the Church wants to play in the political arena, they can pay the tax entry fee like the rest of us. It's only fair.
I think the central issue is that DOMA didn't allow married same-sex couples the recognition or possession of the same benefits and rights of opposite-sex couples. It had nothing to do with religious rights, benefits or recognition. It's discrimination and inequality, which comes under the purview of The US Constitution.
They only like the constitution when it refers to their rights, no one elses
Who are they?
Your neighbors, your family, your friends, your coworkers; the men and women who every day protect you as first responders and soldiers; who teach your children; who do everything that everybody else does---including defending our country, and who at the end of the day are just asking for equal treatment under the law---the law called the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment and US Constitution.
Actually, I was talking about the people in favour of DOMA
mbuggieh you said, "the men and women who every day protect you as first responders and soldiers" and blah blah blah.
Don’t play the “soldier boy” (or girl) card on me, with the implication they are fighting for my country and I should give them some slack on same-sex marriage, biblically speaking. That’s not going to fly or stick to the wall for me personally.
I did my military time in a combat zone. I served with gays and never gave it a thought. I have friends and relatives who are LGBT, just like most everyone else. In fact, I have a better LGBT family story than anyone who is posting on this thread. Bet me.
My issue is this. In my opinion, I have the “right” to say that, biblically speaking, I do not agree with same-sex marriage without being labeled as homophobic or a bigot et al, or I have some “ick” factor problem like you say. I could really spew some really bad anti-LGBT language that most would find offensive, but I don’t. I might add that I also believe that someone posting on a thread like this does not have the right to not be offended. So have it with your own slurs, anybody. Just don’t expect me to be in a good mood about it.
You absolutely do NOT have the right to say anything without being labeled. You have the right to say it, yes, but everyone else then has the right to label you as they see fit.
I've never understood the "I should be able to say anything I want without consequence" argument. Quite frankly, I always saw it as whining. "Oh poor me, I said something that made someone angry and then they told me about myself. It upset me to be harassed like that."
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then by all means, scream it from the rooftops if you like. Just don't expect a pat on the back and a "attaboy"
Homophobia (and yes, I think that's the absolute exact phrase) and bigotry are what they are. If you don't want to be labeled as one, then don't be one. Don't get pissy because you say something homophobic and are then called homophobic for it.
If I said what I really want to say the way I want to say it, I would be banned.
If I used language like you do, someone would report me for a personal attack, and I would be banned.
Let’s take the word homophobic. This is how they word got invented:
“Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as "aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture" and "behavior or an act based on this aversion." Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality.”
That is from an article at psychology.ucdavis.edu.
I don’t see how pointing out verses in the Bible that indicate same-sex marriage, in my opinion, is not God’s plan is homophobic, bigoted, demonizing anybody, or reflecting the “ick” factor. Of course, I’m sure you’ll find some way to say that it is.
Thanks for the definition, I'll go ahead and use the definition as "afraid of homosexuality". Yes, I think it applies in 99% of anti-gay arguments. The only reason I don't say 100 percent, is because I don't believe in absolutes.
And if you think I should be banned for any of my comments, please see the report button below.
Now, the Biblical argument against homosexuality... We'll take that. I know the verses well, so no need to quote. Answer me one question... So?
Leviticus says it's wrong (it really doesn't but that's neither here nor there). Well assume the uneducated version is correct... So the question is SO? Why does it matter? Why bring it up? If you aren't gay why do you care? Answer those questions and I will be happy to show you why your answers are homophobic. (Scared of homosexuality)
I could give a rat's rump about reporting you or anybody else. I've never reported anybody for anything. I am concerned about me being banned, like the other 4 times, when I was banned because somebody was losing a debate and took the easy way out.
I accept your challenge. Response to follow soon. Right after I have dinner.
Of course there is a need to quote. We need to know exactly what was said.
Leviticus does say it’s wrong. It may not be neither, but it is there. Right there. Nothing uneducated about it. Leviticus 18: 22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
That is what the words basically are, no matter what English translation. Okay, maybe you could find some LGBT bible nobody that matters acknowledges. That is what the Hebrew, the original language says. And also the two other prominent bibles that go back to the old days, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate say.
Let’s stick to mankind lying with mankind, the precise language, at least in that verse.
Your first questions are - so, why does it matter and why bring it up? It’s not usually me that brings it up. I merely respond to something someone says I consider to be
total horse chips. If I want horse chips, I’ll look out my window and watch the trail the Amish buggies that ride by leave.
One objection I have is that some say that’s not what that verse means. Okay, you prove that’s not what it means. The burden of proof is on you. You already implied you could. Have at it.
My next, and more important objection, is that people then use their own twisted interpretation of that verse and a convoluted misrepresentation of other verses in Scripture to justify same-sex marriage. They are the ones who cherry-pick verses. Let’s see if you can put it all together.
So I care because people want to redefine marriage based upon their private interpretation of Scripture, and an erroneous one at that. And they want me to swallow some story that makes less sense than nonsense.
Back at you, MelissaBarrett.
Where am I on your homophobic scale?
And please don’t give me some link to what so-and-so said. You said you know it all.
I already said I was allowing the definition as you define it. So that's all irrelevant.
I have no desire to prove it. I don't care what you believe. The question was, why do you care what others believe. Still not an answer.
So? So how does it effect you personally? Are you scared that your own marriage will become weaker if gay marriage is considered marriage?
Once again So? Do you feel your religion is threatened by someone else's version of it?
Pretty high. Especially since basically you are avoiding the questions. Nobody gets angry because someone has a different opinion, unless somehow it affects them. So how does it affect you?
MelissaBarrett, you have no clue what the Bible says, and you just proved it.
All you do is rant. When you get pinned down on specifics about what the Bible says, you punt.
I'll ask Brenda Durham (or anybody else who would care to chime in):
Would a reasonable person think that I answered her questions? If not, why not?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Have a good day.
No, you did not answer her question as you did not answer mine.
I find that you answered the question.
"So I care because people want to redefine marriage based upon their private interpretation of Scripture"
You are homophobic because you fear that society will redefine marriage for people other than you (no one can force you to change your own definition). That you say the root of the problem is people re-interpreting Leviticus might be an indication that you would be better off to direct the fear at Christians rather than homosexuals, but only you can truly address that.
Yes, it's obvious you answered the question.
Closed minds and closed eyes, though, refuse to acknowledge that.
Just as they refuse to even acknowledge the definition of terms that liberals coined in the first place. Because they were coined for the specific purpose of insulting the sensibilities of conservatives, for the purpose of accusing people of things they're not guilty of. Bberean has a thread around here somewhere that addresses the fad of coining words and phrases that cause controversy including political controversy, and the terms thrown around in this thread by liberals are perfect examples of that.
Yes Brenda. I'm sure that's it.
Or... homophobes could be homophobes.
Water is wet, the sky is blue, and people who are homophobic are homophobic.
Or water is dry, the sky is green and people who are homophobic are not bigoted. Nor are they scared of homosexuality.
You lost the debate you initiated before it even got going.
Yeah, pout and take your toys and go home.
Of course you are going to report me, Rad Man. That's what you do. That's the way you play the game.
What about when you defamed me and twisted a post I made about Jezebel being thrown from the wall and being eaten by dogs into a story about how I physically threatened you and your lady friend? And reported me for same?
So people, you may not be hearing any more from me, after Rad Man pushes the button on this one.
How do I know who sent me that questionnaire? It could have been the Pope playing one of his little jokes. I mean, he is interested NAMBLA for obvious reasons.
The Bible is full of contradictions, anachronisms, myths and uncivilized tales signifying nothing.
I see it more as a Rorschach test. If you come out of reading it with hatred in your heart, it's because it was there when you picked it up. Same with love.
Quoting anything out of it to support a case for hatred is just a justification. That's what the person believed anyway. They think the Bible somehow makes it right because they've bent one verse to agree with them.
It's sad really when you are so ashamed of your own opinions that you have to pretend God backs you up to feel comfortable with them.
You realize that throughout history that same-sex marriage has been common in many civilizations?
If you're only rebuttal to wanting to pass a systematic ban on gays getting married is the Bible, then you have no case.
For me it's an issue of selective adherence. You point out that Leviticus 18: 22, says: “'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'” But Leviticus also says:
Leviticus 19: 19 “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material'"
Leviticus 19: 26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.'"
Leviticus 19: 27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'"
I've never met a Christian who believes people should not be able to wear a cotton/polly blend sweater, eat rare meat, or groom their hair and beard. So my question is, by what means do you determine which laws and decrees in Leviticus to adhere to? Why is it okay to flout one law but not another? What is the criteria you are using to distinguish them? And how do you justify not adhering to all of those laws, when you have been clearly asked to adhere to them all: Leviticus 19: 37: "'keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.'" (my emphasis).
Of course you have the right to not be labeled with a term that's false in your case, and is actually an invalid term in almost every case that it's used, and which was coined as a direct attack and accusation of conservatives (in which case, it is a prejudiced and bigoted term to start with).
It is the liberals who would disrepect your opinion and your words, while all the while being adamant about not being labeled themselves as having perverse opinions or actions, etc. Their drawers would get all bunched up and they'd throw a tizzy if conservatives labelled them correctly.
You know, Brenda, I was wondering, if we express an opinion based on the Word of God against same-sex marriage and that in itself makes us homophobic, what about other phobias?
I think you better seek treatment, Brenda, because you are likely also pedophobic, incest-phobic, and polyphobic.
And what about bestiality? I mean, the verse right after Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” is the verse about bestiality. Leviticus 18:23, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
So if you say you are opposed to sex with animals based upon Leviticus 18:23, that makes you what? Zoosexuality-phobic? Zoophobic, Zoophiliaphobic? I’m not sure what the correct terminology would be, but I like zoophobic better, because it’s shorter.
I don’t want to hear the animal didn’t give consent. You know the steaks I’m going to grill today? The cow didn’t give consent.
I wonder how many times one can post the same set of bible verses without it eventually being dinged as duplicated content?
It is necessary to repeat them because those posting here defending same-sex marriage know so little about what the Bible really says.
Right. Because the fact that they can open a bible or refer to one of the multiple other times those verses have been posted is simply not enough. And, in all sincerity, if they're not convinced by those verses the first time, it doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating them.
I really hope you get the irony of your statement.....
I think he assumes that he's the only one who knows what the Bible says.
You know, since he's God and stuff...
And no one else on a writer's site can read...
And no one else owns a Bible... or can Google.
And since he knows ancient Hebrew...and Aramaic... and Greek...
Wow. Who knew that the LGBT community was out to repeal the First Amendment?!
Such power; such intent.
I will never ceased to be amazed at what percolates in the minds of some people.
Who said about appealing anything in the Constitution?
There is a much better strategy that is so easy that even a caveman like me could do it.
First, you can take that condescending tone and do away with it. I've no need for it, and ultimately, neither do you. In the long run, every time you're proven wrong after using a tone like that, it's just going to make you look worse.
Secondly, since congress can make no law regarding an establishment of religion, unless and until the LGBT community (which, as you said, wants to make the government force pastors to marry them), effectively has the First Amendment repealed, they will never be able to do that.
That's what I meant.
The status of couples who marry in a state that allows it then move to one that does not is that their marriage would continue to be recognized by the federal government, but not by the state. (Meaning they could file federal taxes jointly but would have to file state taxes separately, for example).
This is the reverse of the situation experienced under DOMA by married couples in states where it is legal.
However, the repeal of that part of DOMA (note, not ALL of DOMA has been repealed) allows two very important things:
1. It will obligate the military to provide full benefits to same sex military spouses, who are currently denied most of what is given to opposite sex partners including consideration for deployment.
2. It will open up the marriage path to citizenship to same sex couples as long as they are willing to marry in one of the states that allows it or overseas in a country that does.
Both of those are BIG and had to happen at the federal level.
There ARE some liberals who are as bad about wanting to restrict the rights of others as the most extreme conservatives. Sad to say.
Back to the topic of what this costs social security. I talked to my partner last night and he brought up a study that was done in 2004 at the request of a Republican relative.
And not only is it a somewhat selfish argument (I don't want to pay higher taxes, waah) it's actually *wrong*.
1. Federal poverty line for one person living alone in the 48 contiguous states and DC: $11,490. For two people living together $15,510. When those people are recognized as a couple, they are not eligible for as much in welfare as they would be as two single people. Thus, fewer gay men and lesbians would be receiving means tested welfare such as Medicaid, Medicare, etc.
2. The marriage penalty. A couple filing jointly who both work pay more tax than they would as two single people. Same sex couples are disproportionately likely to have two incomes and no kids and thus will be hit by this harder.
The net effect according to the study is that these things will offset the slightly higher cost to social security, the slightly lower revenue from the death tax, and the cost of paying benefits to federal and military spouses, resulting in a small but POSITIVE effect on the government's balance book.
Hopefully the laws which bound this nation are reasonably thought out. By that I do not mean that we continually change the definition of a process to fit the desires of some particular group...which appears to be the mantra of the day. Pretty soon, there are no laws; no realistic definition of terms, and anything that anyone does is just fine...thus no accountability. If one wants the benefits of marriage, then let the government extend their umbrella to include same-sex partnerships, etc as opposed to redefining marriage as it exists both in legal terms and in our religious roots. The problem with that is that those groups crying out for the change in the law are not interested in just acquiring the benefits, they want a confirmed admission of guilt and an open arms acceptance of their lifestyle practices by the general public. I, for one, could care less what they do with their own lives but I do care that we must re-define our past to define our future. Bill Clinton herded DOMA into existence and now he stands before the nation and praises the recent decision of the high court...how two-faced and devoid of character can one man be. Obama opposed same-sex unions less than two years ago and now he is all for it...a whore for the voter. Neither of these people have any principles and they do not care who or what group they use as long as it supports their end goal. Now that we are re-defining marriage, we also begin the process of re-defining legal abortion....another convenience for those who cannot make up their minds but think the world should change for them. We are also going to re-define "illegal immigration" and call them "undocumented future citizenship applicants"....taking away any connotation of wrong doing in the methods used to enter this country, partake of the benefits, and potentially earn citizenship. Here again, the whore politicians are willing to sell us all out to gain new voters who will immediately go on the federal dole when all the changes are complete. Striking down DOMA is simply a symbol to say that the Supreme Court claims the ability to legislate as opposed to interpret law. Their domain is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" yet they avoid those conclusions and elect to shape the world on their own beyond the scope of the court's powers....and in full view of the other two branches of the checks and balances system who sit their on their elected asses in mute silence. ~WB
You know, Wayne, while I may lean a little more toward the left than you do, I often find myself a little in awe of your ability to express yourself about certain issues. This one has me really thinking. While I'm not convinced that the entire gay marriage debate is about wanting more than everyone else, I do agree that the way the politicians push the paper around has nothing to do with real concern for the issue or for the people. It's all about which group will grasp the illusion that they care, take it as truth, and run with it right to the polls.
Good to see you back now and again, brother!
I sympathize with much of your argument, Mr. Brown, and I share some of the resentment you feel regarding the hypocrisy and sophistry in all three institutions of our government, however you lost me with this sentence: "Here again, the whore politicians are willing to sell us all out to gain new voters who will immediately go on the federal dole when all the changes are complete. "
It seems to me that there are significantly greater dole-gluttons out there, like corporations taking a much bigger chunk of government welfare while they lobby and bribe politicians to encourage citizens (possibly like you) to resent the working poor for needing governmental help to stay alive.
A third of our kids are malnourished and forced into a future of poverty and ignorance and therefore dooming America's future.
I think you are being hasty, short-sighted and ignoring the facts.
There are some good people who share your frustration, but have come to a very different conclusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … KOiT1vY7v0
bplusbob, you went here and there in your response, but not to the subject of this thread, which appears to me to be DOMA and same-sex marriage.
What is your opinion on DOMA and same-sex marriage?
And to Wayne Brown: The highest compliment I gave give to what you said is, "I wish I would have said that."
I addressed DOMA in my post above, Jack. Wayne Brown digressed and brought up immigration—not me. I just took issue with his gross generalization implying people who benefit from immigration reform will all go on the public dole, which is significantly less than corporate handouts.
B+Bob, I’ll leave it to you and Wayne Brown to debate that issue if he so chooses. I have more than enough to argue about already.
Did you agree with what he said about the court circumventing the will of the people and the rule of law?
And this statement was very interesting: “that those groups crying out for the change in the law are not interested in just acquiring the benefits, they want a confirmed admission of guilt and an open arms acceptance of their lifestyle practices by the general public.”
Talk about the “mute silence” that he ended his post with.
I’m shocked that none of the rabid “You’re homophobic!” shouting unrighteously indignant same-sex supporters on this thread have jumped on that one.
The supreme court did it's job, in interpreted constitutionality, that is not circumventing democratic process at all but simply what all sides attempt to do when they feel something is wrong (ie. Obamacare supreme court cases).
No one cares what those people think eneough to want an admission of guilt from them, we know what they are guilty of and history will judge them for it, it already is judging them for it, nor does anyone care if they accept their lifestyle, it has nothing to do with acceptance and everything to do with ending legal discrimination, simple as that, the case isn't to get those retrograde people to say sorry or accept them it's so people can make their own life choices without anyone else stopping them.
The homophobic claim is simple fact as a majority position, plenty of studies show exactly that, show a picture of two men kissing to an anti gay marriage person and they will under a brains can show a fear reaction. Are all anti same sex marriage opposers homophobes? No, Are the vast majority? scientifically yes.
Sorry, Jack, but as I stated above, DOMA was addressed (appropriately imho) as an issue of equal rights under the law. And I take Wayne Brown's lack of response as an admission that his statement was indeed a blanket generalization based on his bias.
by Specificity7 years ago
I know we already have a same-sex marriage thread in Politics, but that one has already grown so large that I thought I would start something different here. Generally, my political leanings are Libertarian, which...
by Felixedet20004 years ago
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
by mohamedhmm7 years ago
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next...
by Shanna4 years ago
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/09/ob … ?hpt=hp_t1About time he decided on the issue. Any thoughts/comments/theories? So now he's for it, but is he going to do anything about it, I wonder.
by Innuentendre4 years ago
If incest laws were created to prevent inbreeding and same sex couples are at no risk of doing so, should same sex marriage laws supersede incest laws?
by Grace Marguerite Williams17 months ago
States Supreme Court, why ARE there SOME opposed to this basic human right? What are they REALLY FEARFUL of? LBGT Americans have the same basic rights as other Americans. It is about time that...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.