The Pope has again launched into what is becoming a disturbing mantra: gay marriage is threatening the future of mankind. Now that the Mayan apocalypse has passed, it appears the Pope is ready with a substituted menace of loving gay couples marrying. Pope Benedict XVI insisted that gender theories supporting homosexuality are false and that the world must confront “the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”
The Pope criticized theories suggesting that homosexuality is natural and insists that “[t]he profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious . . . it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears.”
The statement again relies on this false assumption that gay marriage is a threat to family and procreation. The opposite is clearly true. Many such couples want to have children either by artificial insemination or adoption. Same-sex marriage expands the number of families, not reduce that number.
Source: Telegraph
ARE,
Better drunk than an ignorant bigot.
Moral condemnation is moral condemnation regardless of the source.
Answer the question: how does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple and what benefit do you get from opposing such rights?
Thank you for showing us ALL that YOU are the bigot! So any person who disagrees with YOUR ideas MUST be a bigot. Way to go! You are by inference drunk as well.
” not the legal enactment of state authority.”
Yet DOMA is that legal enactment through the collective voice of Congress.
The question before the Court is not the wisdom of providing for or recognizing same-sex marriages as a matter of policy but whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships.
To answer that question the full scope of what it means to be similarity situated must be addressed. As the recent case in Montana illustrates, the co-habit unmarried couple meet the similarity situated upon first look
What Gene said. Every time I ask someone opposed to same sex marriage how it will affect their own hetero marriage, I get no reply. Crickets.
Let me be the first to respond OS then. Using YOUR logic, then how will allowing polygamy affect YOUR hetero marriage? Since it obviously will have NO effect, we should pass a law to enable those folks too to marry the person of their chioce.
I have no problem with New York passing a law allowing gay marriage since that is the right of the state to do so.Gay marriage is NOT a right though. The same is true for polygamy. If a state wishes to pass such a law allowing that, it is perfectly within their right to do so. I don’t think it is socially productive in a cost benefit analysis,but if New York’s family courts don’t have enough to do, it is certainly their right to give them more business to keep them from getting bored.
Of course, I think New York will find they will have to pass new laws to deal with the outcomes of divorce between gay couples. For example, what happens when a lesbian in a gay marriage goes out and cheats and becomes pregnant. Who will be forced to pay child support in a divorce? The man or the spouse? Or if by artificial insemination and against the wishes of the spouse, will the spouse still have to pay child support? I think that there are LOTS more important things for our law makers to do than to have to devote scarce time and money to these questions. Then there is the question of Social Security and retirement plans which are done on an actuarial basis in which only heterosexual marriages are assumed. This will have to be adjusted as well with greater costs. So there are lots of fun things that will come up with gay marriage that have not been addressed. Is the cost worth it?
randyjet,
And you’re simply wrong considering the functions of the 14th and the FF&C Clause. Your entire logic is predicated on the assumption that in the state of nature same sex couples are forbidden by something – presumptively religious – and they aren’t. Many types of mammals – including humans – have naturally occurring homosexual pair bonding. It’s not just mammals either. The behavior has been observed in birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and insects. That fact alone destroys a predicate of your argument; that homosexuality is somehow isn’t a right under the state of nature. The phenomena happens in a state of lawlessness ergo people have that right despite your attempt to take it from them. Your polygamy argument fails because its a false equivalence and there is plenty of sociological evidence why polygamy is a bad idea to encourage. The state’s interest in marriage is strictly secular, i.e. recording the relationship for purposes testamentary, contractual, etc. Your insistence otherwise is a violation of the Establishment Clause that forces your religious preference upon others by force of law. Also, your slavery argument fails simply because calling me a bigot because you are isn’t an argument. Reparations haven’t got shit to do with your willingness to oppress others. Rationalize your bigotry however you like if it makes you feel better, but don’t keep trying to piss in my pocket and tell me its raining. Such rationalizations are meant for you, but I prefer to describe behaviors objectively. Your stance against homosexuals is bigoted. Deal with it. Own your bigotry if you feel that strongly about it, but don’t try to dance your way out of it on ethical or legal grounds. You have none to stand on.
So how about answering the question: how does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple and what benefit do you get from opposing such rights?
Other than the aforementioned unjustified sense of superiority based in your religiously moral condemnation of others.
You must be drunk Gene since I made NO comment about the virtues or the lack of same about homosexuals. You also missed the part where I state I am an atheist. So how the hell you get religion out of my comments is WAY beyond me and the only explanation is you are drunk or mentally impaired. The rest of your post is simply off the wall.
Monte,
There is no draft and I could have sworn that DOMA was a Federal law, not the legal enactment of state authority.
“The Federal Government can pass a law requiring all states to treat all married couples equally, regardless of gender.”
As the Supreme Court observed long ago, the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States. (1st Circuit 2012)
First notice clearly the language Husband and Wife, not genderless person.
One can say the FF&CC is fully in force now, with one states definition of marriage as 1 man 1 woman forced upon all the others.
Collectively the States have defined the distribution of marital benefits through DOMA, again the legal enactment of state authority
Monte,
You are misreading what Gene said. The Federal Government can pass a law requiring all states to treat all married couples equally, regardless of gender. The courts did that in the Loving decision which made anti-miscegenation state laws illegal. It will not require congress to take action if the SCOTUS rules DOMA is unconstitutional.
“And if it’s legal at a state level, forcing other states to recognize such couples is legal under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.”
Not so grasshopper, No State may impose its definition of marriage upon their sister states or that of the Federal Government.
It really is that simple
So Green Bay sex is ok……just can’t marry your packer……
ARE,
Actually the reason why I want gay marriage is precisely legal: equal protection under the 14th Amendment. A stance which is not only legally defensible but just. And if it’s legal at a state level, forcing other states to recognize such couples is legal under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
What I’d like to know is how does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple? I’d also like to know what benefit they get from opposing such? Other than a smug unjustified sense of superiority based in their religiously moral condemnation of others. Surprise! You lot are no better than anyone else. If you don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a man. But don’t try to sell that what you want isn’t oppression and bigotry. I’m going to call bullshit on that.
Sorry Gene, buty simply saying that gay marriage is just and legally defensible is NOT proof or argument. I have stated why I think that gay marriage is NOT a right given the Loving ruling of the SCOTUS, and that gays are NOT discriminated against in marriage laws since they CAN LEGALLY marry any person of the opposite sex as all other citizens can. According to your logic we did NOT need the 19th Amendment either since that would be unnecessary under equal protection doctrine and the courts should have ruled that long before the amendment was passed.
As for the full faith and credit clause, we dodged that bullet when Utah was admitted as a state when Congress told them they would NOT become a state until they outlawed polygamy. So I hope that you will overturn that bit of bigotry by supporting polygamy as well as gay marriage. How about it? Since you feel the state should have little or NO role in saying what marriage should be, then there is NO reason not to support polygamy since it has a long tradition in our civilization and religions FAR more than gay marriage.
AS for the bigotry bit, I hope that you support reparations for all black Americans for their centuries of slavery. If you do NOT, YOU are clearly a BIGOT who hates black folks.
As a change up, to make criminal the actions of a married couple who simultaneously co-habit with other(s) is a direct violation of the right to privacy as outlined in Lawarance v. Texas
Monte,
If someone is precluded from marrying whomever they wish, they are not as equal as a straight couple!
So I guess that you are also opposed to the military draft as well then. THAT makes young men UNEQUAL to LIFE and liberty since that is taken away from them by legislation Though the MA Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage UPHELD that young men should be discriminated against and denied their rights. So good of you and yours to prefer gays over young men and their rights. You have NO problem screwing them out of their LIVES, but oh how horrible gay marriage is not allowed. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for that kind of thing in which your prejudices are supreme over law and rational thought.
Monte,
Your logic does not hold up due to the fact there is no prohibition regarding opposite sex marriage of any kind. No one has proposed limiting the rights of opposite sex people to enjoy the benefits and problems of marriage. The problem comes when people who are born gay are denied the same right as their straight neighbors.
The problem is that gays have the same rights as ALL citizens to marry ANY person of the opposite sex. There is NO discrimination in that. Marriage as defined in Loving does NOT confer ANY right to gay marriage or even to challenge under equal protection rights. The same holds true for polygamous marriages. The state under YOUR conception should also grant polygamy legal status since it denies THEIR right to marriage as their religous beliefs dictate. It also is religious discrimination and infringes on their rights to their practice of religion.
Just because YOU want gay marriage does NOT make it legally right nor reasonable for society. You cannot wave a magic wand and say that gay marriage is a RIGHT! You CAN do as New York did and make it legal in its statutes. That is quite legal and permissable and is hardly open to legal question. I don’t see the benefit for the state, but that is their right as it is the right of other states to prohibit it.
I Loving, however, the Supreme Court was considering the long recognized right to marry.
The case did not involve expanding the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The fact that the right to marry someone of the same sex is not objectively rooted in the Nation’s history does not prohibit statutes defining marriage as a union between a man and woman from constitutional attack. Instead, it precludes the right to marry someone of the same-sex from being a fundamental right.
In light of the foundational and fundamental nature of the institution of marriage, The separate states and Congress are justified in proceeding with caution in considering whether to eliminate a criterion—opposite-sex partners—that has been historically regarded as an essential element of marriage. Under any level of scrutiny, this amply justifies 1 man 1 woman marriage against equal protection attacks.
What OS said!
ERB,
By your reasoning, the state could have a vested interest in prohibiting marriage between infertile couple, or couples past childbearing age. You also do not address the fact the IRS discriminates by not allowing same sex couples to file a joint return. Or that many states willfully ignore same sex rights it gives to heterosexual couples, even if they are legally married in another state which permits it. As for gays marrying opposite sex people, on the continuum of human behavior, there are a large number of people who are bisexual. On the other hand, for many, or most, gay persons, the notion of heterosexual intimacy is as repugnant as you seem to find gay intimacy.
One of my acquaintances is gay. Dave was not able to marry his lifelong partner until just four years ago. The following two links are not easy to read, because I am a new widower too.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/05/1167425/-Widower-after-41-years-Now-what?detail=hide
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/19/1172130/–The-Urn-is-Ready-he-said?detail=hide
NO you are wrong about setting conditions for marriage between one man/one woman, just as it would be wrong to legislate against whites marrying blacks. Loving held that to be wrongful discrimination. It did NOT redeifine marriage as YOU seem to think it did. You refuse to even acknowledge that FACT and use an invalid comparison. As I said earlier, many gays DO marry others of the opposite sex and there are NO laws requiring a gay test to get a marriage license, thus no discrimination.If you feel that it is discrimination, then you also have to grant that polygamists are discriminated against as well since they cannot legally marry more than one person. I am sure we can come up with similar stories of polygamists being hurt by not being able to be legally married and not allowed in to see their loved ones in a hospital because they are not married. So it is OK to discriminate against polygamists,even though that has been around FAR longer than gay marriage, but wrong to discriminate against gays. You are irrational in that, and since you don’t personally know any polygamists, you thus have no sympathy for their plight. Also laws against polygamy has a religious bias built into it since many Mormons and Muslims believe in it and their religion promotes it. So banning it is in effect religious discrimination.
The state has every right to set the limits and conditions for any contracts it gives which is what legal marriage is. I have NO problem with civil unions to mitigate some of the problems exclusively gay people have in their lives. The state has the RIGHT to grant subsidies to any business that it so chooses. That ALL businesses do NOT get such subsidies does NOT mean that those businesses are discriminated against. In my field of aviation, the government subsidized the airlines for decades. There was NO cry that it was unfair and discrimination that ALL businesses did not get the same. Just because the airlines got a subsidy does NOT mean that it is discrimination if Widget Factory does not get one too.
Problem with Romer v Evans. , Romer supports polygamy
“remains to be explained how §501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an “impermissible targeting” of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Amendment 2 is an “impermissible targeting” of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a “legitimate concern of government,” and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?”
I wasnt able to read all comments so forgive if releating what someone else may have said but a man who devotes his life (presumable) to celibacy and is the head of a church that has condoned pedophilia and continues to protect pedophiles rather then the victims is not someone who can speak, authoritatively, on what a ‘real man” is
On the map, note the states which forbid same sex unions in the state constitution altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state
ERB,
There are several states that specifically prohibit same sex unions, whether marriage, common law or civil unions. As long as DOMA is on the books, states are enforcing those laws. Some hospitals refuse to allow same sex couples visitation rights. There have been numerous instances where family members who disapprove of same sex unions have forbidden lifetime partners to participate in funeral arrangements or even attend the funeral because they are not legally married. Discrimination is everywhere you look. Individual states are forbidding same sex unions by hiding behind DOMA. It is now before the Supreme Court, and hopefully they will declare it unconstitutional. Finally, thanks to DOMA, same sex couples cannot file a joint return and get the married couple tax break.
I wish you would READ what I wrote. I stated quite clearly that gays are not discrimiated against in the marriage laws since they can and millions of gays HAVE married persons of the OPPOSITE SEX! Just ask Arriana Huffington about that, and they even have children too. Now if the state wishes to redefine marriage, they have that right, but it is NOT discrimination for the state to define marriage the way it wants to. So a state cannot ban Protestants from marrying a Jew or a Catholic. Nor can it ban an older person from marrying a younger one consistent with age of consent laws. Nor can it prohibit black and white from marrying out of their race as the SCOTUS Loving decision noted. THAT is discrimination which as the SCOTUS noted is a violation of the Constitution. The Loving decision which stated that marriage is a RIGHT refered ONLY to one man one woman marriages since gay marriage had not even been thought of at the time. That same SCOTUS upheld that homosexual acts were in FACT still a crime, so to say that they meant Loving to apply to gay marriage is ABSURD on its face.
Now as for the legal problems that gays have, I think that civil unions are the way to go. In FACT, the Democratic Party and its candidates until this election ALL had that position. I go according to principles, NOT what is politically correct or popular and so my opposition to gay marriage still stands. The state grants marriage and its benefits for ITS OWN ends and reasons, it also helps the individuals. The state has an obvious reason for promoting marriage among its citizens since that it how humans reproduce and it facilitates all kinds of things if there is a legal union. When gay sex results in children, THEN I will be in favor of gay marriage too.
The Libertarian view is that all citizens should get the same goodies as everybody else and that no person should be denied what others get. I am NOT a libertarian, I am a liberal who takes the standard liberal view that we are ALL interconnected and that we have obligations to the state as well as rights and privileges. That if the state grants something, it should get BACK something in return. I am also in favor of the draft which discriminates against young men, and which takes away their LIVES and liberty, not just who they can marry. I think THAT is a whole lot more substantial an infringement of rights.