There is a definite problem when America’s most sacred endeavor to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens is undermined by legislation that is commonly recognized as unconstitutional by the nation’s most powerful leaders. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 passed under the Clinton administration is in blatant violation of the US Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. Even President George W. Bush himself – though not known for his abundance of intellect – stated:
"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state…Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America…” (PBS Online NewsHour)
The confusion and disagreement over the issuance of legal union for homosexual couples lies within the connotative definition of the term “marriage”. The actual purpose and functions of marriage are very different depending on whether it is being considered from a religious or strictly legal vantage point. Religious marriage is designed to encourage love and companionship, as well as a stable family unit that is deemed appropriate for having and raising children in those same religious practices. Legal marriage is a pooling of assets, survivor’s rights, and the generation of a stable family unit that is capable of easily defining paternity and providing for the needs of children that result from that union. These two separate ideas have been wound into one in American society since they are conventionally achieved simultaneously, mostly as a convenience. However, when determining whether or not the government has a place to legislate on this matter, the religious elements must be promptly removed in order to make sound judgment.
In the eyes of the government all “marriages”, whether they be homo- or heterosexual, should really be considered civil unions. It is not the federal, state, or local governments’ place to determine the morality or social appropriateness of a citizen’s choice of life partner. The argument that allowing same-sex couples to be joined in marriage would weaken the sanctity of the institution is irrelevant in the sense that it is of no governmental concern. This argument is based on the fact that many people are simply uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals being granted the same rights as heterosexuals, but the same could be said for interracial marriages, which are uncontested legally.
While governing marriage laws is a reserved power, defending the Constitution and protecting all citizens from discrimination is the responsibility of the federal government. Defining marriage from a religious aspect is a job for spiritual leaders and individuals, not the federal government. A constitutional amendment barring gays from the same opportunities as heterosexuals would go against everything the rest of the document is designed to protect. American institutions of government are held to a standard of justice that is above personal opinion. Just because the majority of Americans are not part of the homosexual community does not mean that those individuals should be denied the rights that their fellow citizens enjoy, and the act of revoking or preventing those rights is a strict violation of the 14th amendment.
“Constitutional Topic: Marriage." U.S. Consitution Online. 15 Mar. 2006. 31 Aug. 2008. .
“The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage." PBS Online NewsHour. 30 Apr. 2004. 31 Aug. 2008. .
“What Is a Civil Union?." FactCheck.Org Annenberg Political Fact Check. 9 Aug. 2007. 31 Aug. 2008. .
This was really well written! I'm impressed, and I can't wait to read more of your work!
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
That evoked a thought that made me want to leave a comment. Our government has vowed to keep state separate from church, thus legal marriage is just, as you said, a legal bounding. Which means people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. Thanks for writing this, because it gave me this little epiphany, haha. Justification for gay marriage is simply the separation of church and state.
This question was raised in my government class when we were discussing federalism, the constitution, and the basic structure of government these provide. Because same-sex marriage is such a personal issue it's easy to forget to set aside religious beliefs and personal value sets, but when I stopped to think about the actual legal context of the debate I had a major light bulb moment myself. I'm glad I could pass it along.
...and not just because I agree with you.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
This blog is lucidly written. I'm glad you made the distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage, which really is just a civil union for gay and straight couples alike.
I had never really realized that, despite the separation of church and state, the government offers benefits to the members of a religious union- a marriage.
So, the problem is to unravel the two distinctions of "marriage," like you said. But, haven't some states already found a solution? As a way of bypassing the interweaving of religion and government that occurs in a marriage, some states have introduced the institution of civil unions. But, I've met gay marriage advocates who say civil unions "aren't good enough;" only "marriage" will satisfy them- even though a civil union and marriage are different in name only. What's their issue, then?
"But, I've met gay marriage advocates who say civil unions "aren't good enough;" only "marriage" will satisfy them- even though a civil union and marriage are different in name only. What's their issue, then?"
The issue is that everyone should be treated as equals under the law.
It used to be that black slaves were not allowed to marry, and blacks were not allowed to marry whites nationally until the courts overturned that popular and religiously-based prejudice in the law in 1967. Would interracial couples have accepted a separate status as "civilly unioned" while whites were "married?"
The issue is that it is inherently unfair to write separate legal documents to apply to some citizens only. If we had some separate status, it would never be equal treatment and we would have to keep wrangling over every little thing.
Imagine if men were allowed to vote but women could only "cast a ballot" but not vote. And then imagine how many struggles women would have trying to make "casting a ballot" count the same. What if men could "vote" by going to their local polling station but women had to "cast a ballot" by going to the state capital. Those who would advocate the separate treatment might argue that it's sort of, kind of, almost being treated like men. But really, it would never be the same until men and women are covered as just "people" under the SAME laws with the same wording.
I don't want the right to some separate and differently-worded status under the law. I don't want a "gay marriage" any more than I want an "interracial civil union" licence (even though my partner is both same sex and different race). I just want to be treated exactly the same as all citizens under the law, using the same documents and the same words that cover everyone fairly and equally.
PS PLEASE, Californians, vote NO on Proposition 8. The implications of that law would create unfair legal obstacles for California same-sex couples and their families, possibly for decades to come.
Nice job in the writing of this article! Now I personally am all for homosexuals to have relationships, and I would grant them such rights as hospital visitation, but how I was raised, and the morals that I stand by, I do not support same-sex marriage. It's my personal belief that union is meant for a man and a woman, not any alternate. I also am a firm believer that same-sex couple should not be allowed to adopt children, for the potential psychological and social setbacks the child could and will endure. See me as narrow-minded, or see me as right; that is your opinion. I'm not hear to say my belief is right, but just to share my feeling on this matter.
"Remember, Tomorrow is promised to no one." Walter Payton
I also am a firm believer that same-sex couple should not be allowed to adopt children, for the potential psychological and social setbacks the child could and will endure.
Your beliefs are not well-informed. Per the American Psychological Association's research summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting...
TTFN
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Great arguement.
That not true, gay people could be wonderful parents. There was this case in Florida a few months ago, where a gay man who had foster 32 children wanted to adopt a mentally retarded boy, who he had take care of for 6 years. The "prolife" people said that children should not be take care by the gay guy even though the prolife people had never foster nor adopt any children themselves. They would much rather a mentally challenge kid be raised in an institution than by a loving father because he is gay. The judge rule in favor of the gay guy because the mentally challenge kid said that he wanted to live with his father.
http://www.realjock.com/article/1225/
“a Florida circuit court ruled this week that the state's 31-year-old ban on gay adoption is unconstitutional.
The case in question concerned a learning-disabled 13-year-old boy who had been living since 2001 in Key West with a gay foster father. The two had originally been put together by a state agency, and in 2006 the foster dad (who was not named in court) was appointed the boy's legal guardian. He has fostered 32 children over the years, since gays fostering children is legal in Florida, even though adoption is not. In court, testimony was given that the boy's social worker had highly recommended approving the adoption, saying that the adoptive father and his partner provided a "loving and nurturing home"; and the boy himself came to court to describe his foster father as a "forever father." Circuit Judge David J. Audlin Jr., the ruling judge in the case, which was brought in Monroe County, said that, "Contrary to every child welfare principle, the gay adoption ban operates as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that...it is never in the best interest of any adoptee to be adopted by a homosexual.'' He added that the adoption was in the boy's "best interest."
My grandpa wrote to me recently that he thought that Obama was the Anti-Christ for promoting anti-Catholic issues like gay rights. I'm really trying to be polite to him, but what I want to say is "Grandpa... sex choices have absolutely nothing to do with politics."
If people want to pick over details about whether to call homosexual marriages civil unions or marriages, I don't really care as long as the couples get the same rights as heterosexuals. I'm Catholic and I understand the Catholic viewpoint, but I understand just as much that religion cannot be mixed in with laws like that. I don't believe that God gave us free will so that the government could take it away.
I support civil unions for same-sex couples. But I think that the defense of marriage act might have been necessary. It's not fair that gays aren't allowed to marry (or civil union or whatever) but it's also unfair for one state to get to decide what is legal in all states. Also, If DOMA was overturned, there is a good chance that there would be a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, because the reason the amendment didn't get that much support is that no state was forced to recognize gay marriage. I want gay marriage to be legal in my state, but only if it's decided by the people in my state.
As for the civil union vs. marriage thing, let me put it like this. If I lived in a state that granted civil unions to gays, and the gays were protesting to get it called marriage, I would say "Gays, seriously, stop wasting our time. There are more important issues to worry about."
And it is because of DOMA that it is important. If it is not called marriage, the couple is not eligible for any of the federal rights granted automatically to married couples. Civil unions only grant state rights. There are 1,049 federal benefits, rights, or privileges denied to couples who get married in a state that has civil unions. It's about EQUAL rights, not a few rights but really, not even close to the same.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Well I am against the aspect of DOMA that says that the federal government will only recognize heterosexual marriages. If the union is recognized by the state, it should be recognized by the federal government. But that would, in my eyes, make the issue of marriage vs. civil unions unimportant.
I don't care about the semantics, but as long as there are rights tied up in the semantics, I can't accept civil unions as equality.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
elaborating or posting links to verify that? I believe you but I am not well informed enough to answer people who challenge me with the question, "What rights are they being denied?" Other than to say, "The right to be legally married," and I know that in many states gay couples are not allowed to adopt children.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
The United States General Accounting Office produced the following report.
Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report, GAO-04-353R (January 23, 2004)
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Thanks for the information, but it's difficult to absorb. I have a hard enough time making sense of these kinds of bills under review in relationship to my own private business. Would you care to summarize, or even just point out a few key things in layman's terms?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Every one of the 1,138 items listed in the document I linked represents a benefit, a right, or a privileges which are directly linked and in most cases can only be obtained through the access provided by the legal institution of marriage. Citizens who do not have free access to the institution do not have a reasonable expectation to be able to access those rights.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...it's also unfair for one state to get to decide what is legal in all states.
While you may see this as unfair, it is founded in the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. A state has the option not to issue same-sex marriages; however, they do not constitutionally have the option to not recognize a marriage license issued in another state. That would be like saying you can't drive in California because you have an Indiana driver's license.
But the Full Faith and Credit Clause is pretty selectively applied, especially since the 1887 Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins
For example, Wisconsin and Illinois prohibit concealed carry of firearms, so a concealed carry license from another state does not allow you to carry in those states. And either way, it would be unwise to try to get DOMA struck down by the court because that would greatly increase the likely hood of a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide. Also, a similar case has said that the FFaCC does not apply to polygamous marriages (I'm not comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy) or interracial marriage before it was legal, and marriage has rarely been protected under it. Now you could make a good case that the first aspect of the clause (Federal Government only recognizes heterosexual unions) is a violation of the 10th amendment.
WHEN WILL THIS DEBATE OVER RIGHT TO GAY STOP? i believe in the declaration of independence of the above stated date." we hold these truth to be self - evident: that all men are created equal;that they are endowed by their creator with certain unlienable rights;that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happines,............ SO, pls, this is enough to stand by. They have right to their happiness..
Mom: "I'm voting yes."
Me: "Why?"
Mom: "First of all, I know a lot of gay people. I have a lot of gay friends. I don't think they are really missing out on anything. They have all the same rights we do. They get even better tax benefits than we do. I just don't see what else they could want."
Me: "What does that have to do with your vote on Prop 8?"
Mom: "I just think that marriage is for a man and a woman. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way God designed it. It is just what is right. Besides, most of the people I know in gay relationships cheat. They aren't monogamous".
Me: "A lot of people in heterosexual marriages cheat too. The divorce rate is about 50%."
Enter Father: yelling "I want to know what rights they are being deprived of. Somebody tell me what rights they are being denied?"
I left the room at that point. I have learned over the past couple of months the futility of arguing with my parents. Especially when I have to work at 5:30 in the morning.
Later that afternoon my husband left me a voicemail; "I'm getting on the freeway and the entrance is backed up with people holding signs saying 'Yes on 8'.
I just don't get it. If gay people already have all these rights, what is the point in spending energy fighting them?
Where in the Bible does God ever say that it is wrong to be gay or for there to be homosexual marriages?
I have read the Bible several times. The only reference I remember having anything at all to do with homosexuality was actually about Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible condemned sodomy in direct relationship to a debauched, guiltless society that had no reverence for humanity. I don't remember any scripture that condemned homosexuality. Nowhere did I read that a woman may not love and marry another woman. Nor do I remember a scripture which says that a man should not love or marry another man. I vaguely remember something about how a man should not lie with another man, but who is to say that God condemns homosexual male relationships wherein sodomy does not take place?
Even if the Bible did say that homosexuality is a sin, where does it condone Christians policing other people's behavior and choices? The whole purpose of Christianity and it's moral code is to teach people a healthy and appropriate way of relating to the world. The Bible describes all kinds of sins, including the seven deadly sins, which include slothfulness, envy, and gluttony. Homosexuality doesn't even make it into the seven deadly sins list. So why are Christians obsessed with homos?"
Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus encourage people to go out and oppress sinners. The Bible tells Christians how to behave, and stresses love. It warns Christians of evil, lies and hypocrisy. In the Bible, people who took it upon themselves to judge others were humbled if not punished by God. It is a Christian's job to mirror Christ. Christ did not go around with petitions gathering signatures to protest the legal rights of individuals to sin. Instead, he taught that individuals seeking God should look inward, and find love.
The current trend of Christians attempting to use law to oppress individual behavior is frightening. It makes me wonder why the forefathers bothered so much with the separation of church and state.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Not a Californian, and probably care less about what happens in California than I do with any other state, but I can see how people would be mad that the Supreme Court changed the law and not the voters, especially when there was already civil unions there. That wouldn't make me vote yes on Proposition 8, but I could see how someone would be angry with the decision.
I can honestly say that i don't care if you like the same sex. That okay with me but when the government tries to interfere with church religions and standards, that where i have a problem. In my church, we get married in temple and a temple is sacred to us. If we were forced to marry same sex couples, we would probably close them down and burn them. I believe that the government should but out. Marriage is between a man and a wife. Like my friend Jared said, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Your friend Jared is not original. That phrase is outdated and not clever.
No church or temple or place of worship would be forced to marry same sex couples. Making same sex marriage legal would have absolutely no affect on churches at all.
Banning it is really just another notch in the belt. "I'm right and you're wrong nyah nyah nyah." Feeding into vanity. Vanity... that's one of the deadly sins isn't it?
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
It will affect churches. Couples could take a chruch to court if they don't let them get married in their building and would most likely win. There has been a known incident for that. A gay couple wanted to get married in a methodist church but the church wouldn't let them. The couple took them to court and sued them and was able to get married in their church. Not only would passing that law affect churches but schools as well. In Massachusetts, little kindergardeners are learning about gay couples and some parents would rather them not learn about that. One dad actually was arrested because he asked the school to not teach his child that and so he was disrupting the peace. You could look it up if you don't believe me.
Would you please post links, because there must be something more to that story with the couple suing the church. Forcing a church to marry any people is completely unconstitutional and I can't believe that the church lost that case.
Leave Canada, please - Canadian Dude
They wanted to get married in a public pavilion on the boardwalk. The lawsuit, incidentally, was filed by the CHURCH against the state, and not by the couple. The couple filed a discrimination claim with the state, the state was investigating whether the pavilion was or was not considered public space, given that it was consistently used by the public for several years. The church sued to make sure the state couldn't declare it public space, because the church owned that section of the boardwalk.
When you challenge people to look up your facts, it's usually a good idea to make sure you have them straight in the first place.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Marriage, of any sort, is a union of sadness. True, there are those individual who marry out of love, but it seems that most of these unions are made in the hopes of some unreasonable future. We should all really be working to end marriage in its entirety.
-OxonGlass11
Oh my, this is serious, you are right to say God created Adam and Eve and not Steve. I am absolutely in support of that but how can we manage this with the idea of liberalism which Americans want- deviant life style and yet we are longing for conservatism for orderliness. In that case, if America is still a liberal country, then liberty is guaranteed. the situation might be sad but its their right, i still remain on that point.
Ahem...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I can't believe that there hasn't been any disagreement regarding my post about homosexuality in the Bible. Are there really no Bible believers out there who have any scriptural rebuttal?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
so are you suggesting that the government should round up homosexuals and exterminate them base on "god's law"?
I'm suggesting that it is insane for modern governments to base anything on "god's law".
You are the first to produce a response to this question which I have asked on several other posts.
I love language, so i guess I could claim be a linguist, except for the fact that I am a latent student.
I have studied religion thoroughly. I have also studied human sexuality compulsively. I am in awe of the magnetism with which these two forces claim hold to the human experience.
In alignment with the allegiances I just pledged, I want to argue that another possible interpretation of:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination"
is the interpretation which states:
"If any one person fucks humanity in the way men are taught to fuck women, all people involved shall be promptly accused and held accountable; male and female alike."
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Your interpretation fails because:
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The old testament very explicitly and unequivocally advocates a morality that civilized humans outgrew centuries ago. This is another topic I'm going to blog about... eventually.
lesbianism or homosexual relationships, including marriage, wherein "men don't lie with men in the manner that they lie with women."
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Oh, so a biblical theocracy would only exterminate bisexual men and anyone they sleep with? And here I was calling that kind of government insane. Silly me.
A biblical theocracy that held the Bible as the law of the land could not legally impose regulation on lesbian marriage. Nor could they legally impose on gay male marriage where sodomy did not take place.
I love having the freedom to be inconsistent!
I don't have to commit to anything.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
This time I was talking to a social worker. She was arguing that Democrats are for big government. I said that normally I think that is generally true, but right now I feel that the Republicans are more about big government. She was confused. I said,
"What is big government if it isn't interested in controlling individual choices? I think that is the biggest kind of government."
She said "What do you mean?"
I said, "How about government being able to dictate marriage? Isn't that a pretty big breach of church and state?"
She got heated, and began spouting a lot of the stuff already posted in this blog, about churches being forced to marry gays, etc. She also told me that she knew of a therapist who had their license revoked because they refused to counsel a gay couple and were sued. She said, "They want to rub our faces in it. They want to force us to accept it."
I really take issue with this. If prop 8 doesn't pass, fundamental churches are not going to be bombarded with gay people demanding to be married. I don't think it is in the interest of gay people in general to impose themselves on closed-minded biggots. If I were gay and wanted to get married, I would go to a church that I knew was gay friendly. I wouldn't want to get married with a bunch of homo haters spewing at me and my partner while exchanging our vows.
Also in response to her claim about someone losing their license for refusing to counsel a gay couple, she couldn't give me any other information, such as a name or court case. I explained to her that as a nurse, I was always taught in school to be aware of my own prejudices. If I am ever in a situation where my personal opinions and beliefs would compromise the quality of care I would give, I am supposed to tell a supervisor and request that someone else be assigned that patient. I also explained that even though I am pro-Choice I refuse to participate in the care of a patient having an abortion. That is my right. People can and do sue for all kinds of things, but what is actually upheld in court is a different story.
Voting no on Prop 8 is also not a vote advocating for gay people being able to have gay sex in public. I find this kind of opposition very weak and ignorant.
I do have reverence for the Constitution. I don't always like how we have to continually ammend it, but sometimes it is necessary in order to clarify that certain individuals are protected by it. I don't understand how anyone can think it Constitutional to ammend the Constitution to exclude rights for anyone.
If a person opposes gay marriage on "moral grounds" they have every right to their opinion. The first ammendment protects a lot of people. It protects pornographers and racists. I oppose these people on moral grounds, but I wouldn't want to take away the first ammendment. The Constitution is not about morality. It is about "certain inalienable rights".
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Every aspect of our social lives will be controlled by the government always. We will always live by their morals, follow their laws no matter how much they are taking away from our rights as American Citizens.
That's not exactly true. As much as the general public detest certain aspect of our government, it is certainly one of the most progressive democracies in the world. Compared to how most of the world lives, Americans are relatively well-off in the spectrum of individual rights.
-OxonGlass11
People forget that America is NOT a theocracy. Too often do they forget about the seperation of church and state.
The gay marriage issue isn't about whats allowed by certain religious institutions, its about equality.
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is - infinite.”
First off, this is a great blog, very well done. I think that is important that civil unions ie. civil marriages be blind to sex in general. That said I think that what is most important is that the civil unions be the same in every way reagardless of sex. This is actually not always the case. In many places, limits have been put on the benefits of legal unions that are homosexual. This is why many fight for 'marriage' as opposed to accepting civil unions.
First blog - go easy on me.
I guess this is mostly to turtlesuds, the rebuttle for the Bible. First of all, I don't like to begin or end any religious subject on the Bilbe. Contrary to popular Christian belief, I don't believe that the Bible is infallable, but that it is one of the best guides to lead the honest seeker of happiness and truth to God, and should be used that way. Regardless, and reluctantly as explained, here goes:
Leviticus 20:13 already mentioned.
Romans 1:27-28
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that wihiich is unseemly, and recevvingg in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to tretain Ggod in their knowledge, God gave thme over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are no convenient” and it goes on.
This one is especially bold,
1 Cor. 6:9
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…”
And now this one,
1 Tim. 1:9-10
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, … , For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, …”
And there are about four others in the New and Old Testament that reference Sodom and in some way reflect their behavior in a negative light. No more on this subject
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
I’ve traveled the world over the past several years and spent literally ALL of my time speaking with people from many cultures many classes. Amongst those I spent substantial time in slums, among the poor, the uneducated, the desperate and the criminal. Many let me in their homes, were and are my friends. But in every place I went, where there was sexual indulgence without self control, there was misery. It truly is the plague of our day. Whether it was young promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, or any other form of sexual misconduct, I saw it all. I don’t know very many people that agree with me that any of that’s wrong, but I saw the tears, the orphaned children, the hopeless futures and the generational repetition of ignorance and moral decay.
THE LAW, STRICTLY SPEAKING
I fully agree with ‘donttreadonme’. I do believe that the full faith and credit clause is specific and does not overrule the laws already existing in one state (I have a hard time believing that the constitutional framers with their mutual state jealousies would have approved that one).
It maintains the flow of conversation.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
If anyone wants to read an in-depth point by point study as to why same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, I had posted a blog on it previously: http://progressiveu.org/202031-constitutionality-same-sex-marriage-bans
I also have blogged on this topic a lot in the past few days on my other blog site.
As a homosexual and a agnostic bordering as close to atheism as you can get without declaring it, I am outraged (but not shocked) by religion's ability to ruin lives once again.
My boyfriend and I will probably move to the Boston area once he finishes college.
First and foremost I wish that all of those marriages in California will still be recognized. Secondly, I hope that the lawsuits already being filed make it to the U.S. Supreme court and they settle this for equality once and for all, just as they did with interracial marriages and doing away with separate but equal in Brown v. Bd. of Education(it's inherently unequal).
Lastly, I'm sick of living in Wisconsin and dealing with winter. I want a warm climate homosexual-friendly state to live in.
Let's reverse this sickening proposition and let's educate some morons in the process.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
If I weren't happily married, I'd be praying to God to make you heterosexual!
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
You could also pray to God to make you a gay male. ;)
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I haven't thought of that one before. I have wondered what it would be like to be a male, but in the context of being with a woman. Interesting, I don't think I like this new idea as much, personally, that is.
I want a warm climate homosexual-friendly state to live in.
Boston != Warm climate... sorry :-/
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!