jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (166 posts)

Should the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA) be overturned?

  1. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    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)?

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    2. IslandBites profile image86
      IslandBitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ruled unconstitutional. I'm glad.

      Btw, so proud of Sonia Sotomayor.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's enough to make me optimistic about this country.

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Your opinions are total crap. What do you have against applying the Constitution to every U.S. citizen?

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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."

                  2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Ralph,

                    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.

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's infinitely more sources than you have posted for anything.

                  1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

    4. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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!

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    6. IslandBites profile image86
      IslandBitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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. :-)

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That actually made me tear up.

        Thank you for posting it.

    7. Mitch Alan profile image86
      Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Mitch Alan profile image86
          Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                    Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What churches cannot perform services that they want to? You are confusing granting legal status versus performing a service or ritual.

            2. Mitch Alan profile image86
              Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. Mitch Alan profile image86
              Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                  Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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?"....

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

    8. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So glad you are back.

        1. A Thousand Words profile image81
          A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          LoL, thanks. I've missed chatting with you all. I've been extremely busy, but now I've got a little more free time on my hands, so I decided to get back into the mix.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know, you'd think it would be common sense wouldn't you?

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Yes, and it was smile

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    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
    pressure applied.

    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' roll

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.”

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness,
          Bravo.
          How can anyone argue with your logic and fairness and charm?
          smile
          (((Wilderness)))
          MM

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Now you're scaring me, MM - we're usually on opposite sides of the fence.  Almost as bad as John Holden and I. smile

            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.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Actuallly, I've noticed recently I am agreeing with you on most issues, Wildernes.

              Maybe it's just the selection of issues being brought to the forums recently.
              Maybe we're closet centrists! (Shhh. Don't tell anyone lol).

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

          2. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "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

      3. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do homosexuals not pay in to those systems?

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Don't single people, straight, gay, or bisexual pay into that same tax system?  Haven't homosexual workers been paying into that same tax system for years without being able to benefit from it?

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  5. Superkev profile image87
    Superkevposted 3 years ago

    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.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    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.

  7. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    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.

  8. michememe profile image76
    michememeposted 3 years ago

    Wow! I love your response.

  9. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good post, I had not thought of it that way.

    2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He doesn't like to acknowledge that.

  10. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    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".

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those posting on this thread are a sophisticated crowd. Right, people?

      If you are going to play the homophobic card, instead of words like "ick" please use words like "demonize."

  11. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    The Supremes got one right for a change. A small step for the Supremes and a giant step for mankind.

  12. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bet you are happy to accept benefits paid for out of taxation on same sex married couples though aren't you!

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I'm paying taxes to fund religious organizations so they can spread their homophobia.

        Sucks right?

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?"

            Yes.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "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?

          3. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

          4. bplusbob profile image60
            bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner!

            2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They only like the constitution when it refers to their rights, no one elses

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, I was talking about the people in favour of DOMA

                2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                  BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                  2. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

          5. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is completely not true.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wow.  Who knew that the LGBT community was out to repeal the First Amendment?!

              roll

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly...wow!!!

                Such power; such intent.

                I will never ceased to be amazed at what percolates in the minds of some people.

              2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                Guess again.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

  13. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    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.

  14. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    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*.

    Here's why:

    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.

  15. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    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

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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! smile

    2. bplusbob profile image60
      bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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."

        1. bplusbob profile image60
          bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

          2. bplusbob profile image60
            bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

  16. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Thank you MtTChiTwn!

 
working