Breaking: Federal appeals court strikes down DOMA

posted at 10:41 am on May 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Can’t wait to see how this plays in November, along with Barack Obama’s flip-flop on gay marriage:

 An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

Here’s the court decision, via ThinkProgress.  The court points out that, contra some hysteria among activists, DOMA does not invalidate marriages, but it gives states leeway to disregard marriages performed in other states, and puts the federal government in the position of denying the validity of such marriages — which the court found:

Its adverse consequences for such a choice are considerable. Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i).  DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

DOMA affects a thousand or more generic cross-references to marriage in myriad federal laws. In most cases, the changes operate to the disadvantage of same-sex married couples in the half dozen or so states that permit same-sex marriage. The number of couples thus affected is estimated at more than 100,000.3 Further, DOMA has potentially serious adverse consequences, hereafter described, for states that choose to legalize same-sex marriage.

The court also ruled that both precedent and equal-protection issues combine against DOMA:

Although our decision discusses equal protection and federalism concerns separately, it concludes that governing precedents under both heads combine–not to create some new category of “heightened scrutiny” for DOMA under a prescribed algorithm, but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage.

The decision also includes a stay as the respondents plan an appeal to the Supreme Court.  On its face, it appears that the court supports the idea that states can define marriage any way they like, but that DOMA has so many implications for federal treatment of couples that would then discriminate between states that it can’t be constitutional.  Some libertarians and Tenth Amendment supporters disliked DOMA for federalist reasons anyway, so I’d expect a mixed reaction to this decision, tempered by knowledge that the Supreme Court will eventually decide this anyway.

Update: The Boston Globe clarifies an important point:

The court didn’t rule on the law’s other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.

This looks like a Solomon-like attempt at splitting the baby along federalist lines.  If I’m reading this correctly, the court is ruling that the federal government has to recognize marriages performed in states, including same-sex marriages, regardless of whether the couples’ marriage is recognized in the state in which they later reside.  However, the states don’t have to recognize the marriages, which may make for some confusion at tax time, but otherwise means that couples get non-discriminatory treatment within each level of government.  Perhaps that kind of compromise would carry the day at the Supreme Court as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I’ve told you twice, I believe, that you made an incorrect inference. I’m telling you again since you are under the delusion that it was “correct” and continue to claim it as such.

I was talking with someone else and you jumped in about licenses when I had said nothing about licenses. Nor did my question have anything to do with the state’s recognition of marriage.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So when you were saying that conservatives in general and quite often oppose freedom you were excluding most conservatives most of the time?

gwelf on May 31, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Dante, how’s the ol’ anal suspensor holding up?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Still waiting for you to inform us how advocating redefining the family and marriage is conservative, dearie.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

how ’bout you say what you mean instead of a vague little innuendo? but that was what you meant to do so you could then dance around any replies w/ “when did i say that” to try and make yourself feel clever.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 2:19 PM

So ask away.

The State should have no business in marriage at all. None. Freedom is the ability of the individual to make unprohibited choices and actions for his life so long as those choices and actions do not involve fraud or force nor infringe upon the rights of another (granted, as long as the State exists, no one is free – but that’s another discussion). For example, gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all. Nor does it effect anyone else’s. To deny consenting adults their liberty using the force of government is not promoting freedom.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

That it’s a destructive lifestyle is your opinion, and not a fact. I disagree with your opinion.

Also, I couldn’t care less about the Bible or what it says. That’s your code and moral system, not mine.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Talk with physicians who treat homosexuals. They will tell you that male homosexuals typically suffer from prolapsed rectum, they suffer from infections from the ingestion of feces, and the incidence of abuse and suicide is higher than any other demographic except possibly meth addicts. A male homosexual who has been in that lifestyle before too long has to wear adult diapers because he’s lost the muscle tone necessary to control his bowels.

Talk with counselors who work with homosexuals who are suicidal, who have been abused by “lovers”, who are dealing with the loss of identity and self-respect.

It’s all part of a destructive lifestyle. There – I quoted nothing from the Bible. So disagree with me on this.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Go cut and paste some apparent contradictions off an atheist web site and we’ll make sense of them for you.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Oh man. No no no no no no don’t do that!

Please. I have money. Well, wait. I have leftover chicken. I have a Dr. Pepper and some leftover chicken. Take it all.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

But they can’t have their desired freedom without redefining marriage and the family.

I don’t have that power. So granting it to them wouldn’t make them equal to me but superior.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM

The State should have no business in marriage at all. None. Freedom is the ability of the individual to make unprohibited choices and actions for his life so long as those choices and actions do not involve fraud or force nor infringe upon the rights of another (granted, as long as the State exists, no one is free – but that’s another discussion). For example, gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all. Nor does it effect anyone else’s. To deny consenting adults their liberty using the force of government is not promoting freedom.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

None of the 50 states are forcibly preventing gay couples from forming private unions. Some states choose to grant these couples a license and others do not. In either case gay couples enjoy all of their natural rights and freedom.

gwelf on May 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Yup. Another disciple of the p*nis right there. Right, Dante?

splink on May 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Some people are fishers of men…splink is a just a fissure of man.

MelonCollie on May 31, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Freedom is the ability of the individual to make unprohibited choices and actions for his life so long as those choices and actions do not involve fraud or force nor infringe upon the rights of another

That’s pure libertarianism. If I freely agree to have you hurt me/harm me/kill me that’s fine according to this criterion and no one should interfere. Right?

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM

For example, gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all. Nor does it effect anyone else’s. To deny consenting adults their liberty using the force of government is not promoting freedom.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

LOL– Using the force of the government is promoting freedom??? BTW, gay marriage does effect other people. Try the parents in Massachusetts who was told by the school system and then later a federal judge that they could not opt out of their six year old learning about gay unions in the name of diversity…

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM

The State should have no business in marriage at all. None. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

So when a man dies and fifty women show up claiming to be his wives because there’s no wedding licenses, how do we sort that out?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Talk with physicians who treat homosexuals. They will tell you that male homosexuals typically suffer from prolapsed rectum, they suffer from infections from the ingestion of feces, and the incidence of abuse and suicide is higher than any other demographic except possibly meth addicts. A male homosexual who has been in that lifestyle before too long has to wear adult diapers because he’s lost the muscle tone necessary to control his bowels.

Talk with counselors who work with homosexuals who are suicidal, who have been abused by “lovers”, who are dealing with the loss of identity and self-respect.

It’s all part of a destructive lifestyle. There – I quoted nothing from the Bible. So disagree with me on this.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Ok, so now you’re talking specifically about acts among a select group of homosexuals, as if the same acts don’t happen in heterosexual relationships. Is that not just as “destructive”? Is abuse and suicide not found among a heterosexual population?

Please. Suicide and abuse by “lovers”. This is quite the reach.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:36 PM

So when a man dies and fifty women show up claiming to be his wives because there’s no wedding licenses, how do we sort that out?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM

We?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Can’t wait to see how this plays in November -Ed

I agree – If Obama runs on gay marriage as part of his platform and the republicans/Mitt make it an issue.

If this doesn’t hurt Obama then these last decades of gay sex activism will have advanced its cause(?).

In gay marriage is there a stigma about having sex outside of the marriage or is that still getting worked out? I wouldn’t know. I’m curious.

BoxHead1 on May 31, 2012 at 2:40 PM

That’s pure libertarianism. If I freely agree to have you hurt me/harm me/kill me that’s fine according to this criterion and no one should interfere. Right?

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I thought we were talking freedom, are we not? Freedom isn’t exactly a sliding scale. So if you think restrictions should be placed on behavior that doesn’t infringe upon another/’s rights, then how is that promoting freedom?

Prize fighters mutually consent to harming each other, do they not?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Ok, so now you’re talking specifically about acts among a select group of homosexuals, as if the same acts don’t happen in heterosexual relationships. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I think that you’ll find that the rate of anal suspensor repair among sodomists is much higher than for married women. Also instances of cytomegalovirus, venereal diseases of all kinds, you know. All that stuff. Pretty much absent among faithful married women. And men for that matter. Who knew?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

For example, gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all. Nor does it effect anyone else’s. To deny consenting adults their liberty using the force of government is not promoting freedom.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

BTW, which side exactly is using the force of the government really?? The side that loses in a VOTE and then goes and whines to the judge or the side that lets it get voted on??

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

So when you were saying that conservatives in general and quite often oppose freedom you were excluding most conservatives most of the time?

gwelf on May 31, 2012 at 2:28 PM

No.

You sure do have a fascination with putting words in people’s mouths.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:36 PM

The physical act of sex between heterosexual couples does not produce the same physical maladies as the physical act of sex between homosexual males. Are you really this daft? If you are, it’s intentional because you know your stance on this issue is so far indefensible.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I thought we were talking freedom, are we not? Freedom isn’t exactly a sliding scale. So if you think restrictions should be placed on behavior that doesn’t infringe upon another/’s rights, then how is that promoting freedom?

Marriage really isn’t a right..

State recognized marriage including same sex is not a natural right. It cannot occur independent of the state and the state must bestow the “right” on to you thus enabling the state to regulate or restrict that right. Although one could argue that a natural bond is formed when a biological child is born automatically making the parents more than friends with bennies- this does not constitute a “state recognized” union.

The fall back is then equal protection under the law. I won’t even discuss levels of scrutiny and how sexuality falls under the lowest level of scrutiny. Equal protection guarantees equal opportunity not equal outcome. Marriage licenses are not granted based on sexuality therefore there is no specifically exclusion of any sexuality . Homosexuals can apply and do receive marriage certificates. Marriage licenses are based on regulations decided by the individual states. Marriage laws are not based on love or attraction.

Everyone has the right to marry one person from the opposite gender within that state’s marriage regulations (opportunity) . Everyone does not always have the right to marry who they love or are attracted to i.e., incest, polygamy, age of consent, species, same gender(outcome). These restrictions effect people of all sexuality.

Even interracial bans were exclusionary. The interracial ban applied to ONE race: whites. Minorities could intermarry . No sexuality can marry the same gender. Interracial bans would be an apt comparison if heterosexuals could marry same gender, but same sex could not.

You can argue that this isn’t fair, but that doesn’t suddenly make marriage regulations unconstitutional.

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Bumper sticker for sale at DNC headquarters:

One man+Five women = Marriage
Protect It.
Romney ’12

inthemiddle on May 31, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I find it hilarious that you idiot Leftists have no problem endorsing the Islam religion, which treats women like trash, yet hate a religion that used to advocate Free Sex.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I’m not joking. That question is quite serious and I ask it of myself as much as anyone else. splink on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

C’mon, it’s not that we hope to convince any of the verbaluce’s and dante’s of the world, we’re just teasing the village atheists for our own amusement.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I think that you’ll find that the rate of anal suspensor repair among sodomists is much higher than for married women. Also instances of cytomegalovirus, venereal diseases of all kinds, you know. All that stuff. Pretty much absent among faithful married women. And men for that matter. Who knew?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Thank you.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

The SCOTUS will not have decide this case until after the elections. They have their hands full with ruling on Obamacare and other crap.

We already know Obama is pro-homosexual in all respects–if reelected, he will simply “evolve” to full endorsement mode. It’s up to Mitt to drive the point home when the issue comes up. It’s a winner of an issue for him because he can shore up his base. All the pro-gays are already deep in the D tank. If Obama is stupid enough to use this as a distractor he deserves what he will get.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM

gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all.
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The Manson Family’s murder spree didn’t affect my life at all.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM

But they can’t have their desired freedom without redefining marriage and the family.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM

This is a straw man. Neither family nor marriage is being redefined.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The Manson Family’s murder spree didn’t affect my life at all.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You’re out of your element.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Bumper sticker for sale at DNC headquarters:

Obama Sr +four women = Marriage
Protect It.
Barack abu Hussein ibn Obama al Kenyi al Indoni al Amriki ’12

inthemiddle on May 31, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Fixed it for you by adding facts.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I think that you’ll find that the rate of anal suspensor repair among sodomists is much higher than for married women.

Married twenty one years.. Did my kegels prevent that?? :)

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The physical act of sex between heterosexual couples does not produce the same physical maladies as the physical act of sex between homosexual males. Are you really this daft? If you are, it’s intentional because you know your stance on this issue is so far indefensible.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Really? Even if heterosexuals perform the exact same sex acts, you’re going to say it doesn’t produce the same physical “maladies”?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I thought we were talking freedom, are we not? Freedom isn’t exactly a sliding scale. So if you think restrictions should be placed on behavior that doesn’t infringe upon another/’s rights, then how is that promoting freedom?

Prize fighters mutually consent to harming each other, do they not?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Answer the question or pull out of the debate. If we agree that you can kill me, should you be charged with murder? Yes or no?

A pure libertarian must answer No. Put up or shut up.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

But they can’t have their desired freedom without redefining marriage and the family.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM

This is a straw man. Neither family nor marriage is being redefined.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Ok, so one minute it’s defined as a man and a woman, next minute it’s defined as two women or two men.

That’s not a redefinition.

You are either brain dead or a liar to say that that is not a redefinition.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

LOL– Using the force of the government is promoting freedom???

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Uhh….no. Where did you get that idea?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Thank you.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Me too. Different reasons.

Not allowed to talk about these things anymore. It doesn’t contribute to the story.

Dante will explain.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

Good. Judges appear to understand that a relationship between two people is not the business of government until the rights of someone in the relationship is violated.

That sounds like the right frame of mind for the legal profession to possess during the period in which it has been deciding the ruling on BO’s healthcare takeover, ehem, law.

This is a good thing people! It’s holds up the value of individual rights.

Don’t fear gay people just cover your eyes when they kiss, yuck!

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Married twenty one years.. Did my kegels prevent that?? :) melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Um, I think those exercises are more area-specific than would be helpful on the Hershey Trail. Please, no more personal info…

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Really? Even if heterosexuals perform the exact same sex acts, you’re going to say it doesn’t produce the same physical “maladies”?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Again, you prolong an argument you’ve already lost by repeating questions that have already been answered, either by me or by others.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 2:53 PM

The Manson Family’s murder spree didn’t affect my life at all.
whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You’re out of your element.
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Just utilizing your bizarrely irrational rationale that if something doesn’t directly affect another person then it’s all good. Your reasoning is totally void of any logic.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Married twenty one years.. Did my kegels prevent that?? :) melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Um, I think those exercises are more area-specific than would be helpful on the Hershey Trail. Please, no more personal info…

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:53 PM

It was a joke.. Lighten up, Francis…

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Marriage really isn’t a right..

State recognized marriage including same sex is not a natural right.

*snip*

You can argue that this isn’t fair, but that doesn’t suddenly make marriage regulations unconstitutional.

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I never claimed marriage is a right per se, let alone a natural right (though we could possibly get into a freedom of association discussion, I guess), nor have I said marriage regulations are unconstitutional. I said DOMA is unconstitutional because it amends the Constitution without going through the amendment process.

Answer the question or pull out of the debate. If we agree that you can kill me, should you be charged with murder? Yes or no?

A pure libertarian must answer No. Put up or shut up.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Your question was “If I freely agree to have you hurt me/harm me/kill me that’s fine according to this criterion and no one should interfere. Right?”

I already answered the question, but since you didn’t seem to pick up on it: Yes, which is the libertarian answer, not “No” as you seem to believe.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Good. Judges appear to understand that a relationship between two people is not the business of government until the rights of someone in the relationship is violated

Umm, state recognition of gay marriage is the business of the government.. Doh’

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Just utilizing your bizarrely irrational rationale that if something doesn’t directly affect another person then it’s all good. Your reasoning is totally void of any logic.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM

If that’s what you think, then you don’t pay attention. You are out of your element. Way out.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The Manson Family’s murder spree didn’t affect my life at all.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You’re out of your element.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Then it should be easy for you to counter his argument instead of cowering to it.

blink on May 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

He can’t – I am using his own argument. Free Charlie!

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:58 PM

splink on May 31, 2012 at 2:54 PM

There are many euphemisms (e.g. “navel”) employed in the Song of Solomon, for instance. The KJV translators were blushing quite a bit in committee, and didn’t want some of the more explicit passages bellowing from English pulpits in all their musky, sensual glory!

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I think I was jokin back atcha.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM

What relevance could an answer to that question possibly have to you? The only forms of human sex expressly or implicitly prohibited in the Bible are (someone add any I miss):

1. Man with man
2. Woman with woman
3. Man/woman with animal
4. Blood relatives
5. Women with fallen angels
6. Married man/woman with someone besides the spouse (adultery)
7. Unmarried men with unmarried women (fornication)
8. Adults with children

I am not defending or condoning anything here; I’m only pointing out that nowhere in the Bible are there any implicit or explicit prohibitions, or even guidelines, on what a married man and woman may or may not do in the marriage bed.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Are you seriously bringing the Bible into it?

LOL. ok.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I think I was jokin back atcha.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM

My bad.. :)

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Just utilizing your bizarrely irrational rationale that if something doesn’t directly affect another person then it’s all good. Your reasoning is totally void of any logic.
whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM

If that’s what you think
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Actually, that’s your thinking; I just exposed your excuse to be a supremely silly one.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

No.

You sure do have a fascination with putting words in people’s mouths.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I’d like to introduce you to Dante – some guy who keeps asking if conservatives support freedom (which you should not construe as implying that conservatives don’t support freedom):

Gay marriage is not conservative.

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Is freedom?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You said gay marriage is not conservative. I asked if freedom is. Seems like you’re suffering from cognitive dissonance. After all, isn’t gay marriage a private contract between consenting adults choosing to love and live with each other?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Dang. My bad. I forgot for a moment that conservatives don’t truly want freedom. As if every blog post on this site isn’t a reminder.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I slipped and incorrectly believed for a moment that conservatism promotes freedom. I was quickly reminded that it doesn’t.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Ok, so those who consider themselves conservative don’t promote freedom.

Is that better?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM

It is entirely accurate. Many so-called conservatives – those who think they are conservative – often come down against freedom and liberty. Quite often.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM

gwelf on May 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

My bad.. :) melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Love yer smile…

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Just kidding!

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

There are many euphemisms (e.g. “navel”) employed in the Song of Solomon, for instance. The KJV translators were blushing quite a bit in committee, and didn’t want some of the more explicit passages bellowing from English pulpits in all their musky, sensual glory!

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Not stalking. You were just interesting twice :)

Song of Solomon. I love that weird thing. It’s downright risque.

Pomegranates are involved.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Are you seriously bringing the Bible into it?

LOL. ok.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM

You don’t get to limit the resources we use just because you choose not to believe in what they have to say. That’s your problem, not ours. I notice you offer nothing to back up your beliefs. Either that means you have nothing to stand on, or…it means you have nothing to stand on.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Your question was “If I freely agree to have you hurt me/harm me/kill me that’s fine according to this criterion and no one should interfere. Right?”

I already answered the question, but since you didn’t seem to pick up on it: Yes, which is the libertarian answer, not “No” as you seem to believe.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM

They are two different questions. Now that you’ve answered the first one, I know that you are a pure libertarian. For you, homicide is not homicide, and it is just a consent form away.

For us conservatives, however, and for the authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, homicide is murder, full consent or not. That’s why you’re having a hard time on this thread. Like Obama and the Gay Rights people, you have a moral understanding that makes your idea of “freedom” completely at odds with our own.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

once again, conservatism has NEVER said freedom was absolute w/o conditions. over thousands of years of civilization societal norms have developed, not due to hate of any group but because its the best way to do things. not the perfect way just the best way. tried and true methods. one of those is the nuclear family. freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want however you want just dont work in civilized society. if you want to blame people, society, etc for that, well fine. but it dont make it so.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Pomegranates are involved. Axe on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I think pomegranates are symbolic of fruitfulness.

“Navel” however is a euphemism for something else, something intoxicating: “Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor,” 7:2.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

And I’m still waiting for you to tell me how it’s anti-conservative to support the concept of age restrictions on driving. Do you support 5 year-olds being allowed to legally drive on highways? blink on May 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

He’s irrational. He said above that redefining marriage as male/male female/female was not redefining marriage. Go on, look it up. I ain’t kiddin’.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM

@Akzed

… went down to the grove of nut trees to look at the new growth in the valley, to see if the vines had budded or the pomegranates were in bloom.

Let us go early to the vineyards to see if the vines have budded, if their blossoms have opened, and if the pomegranates are in bloom— there I will give you my love.

Alright. Enough of that.

lol.

*wipes forehead*

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

For us conservatives, however, and for the authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, homicide is murder, full consent or not. That’s why you’re having a hard time on this thread. Like Obama and the Gay Rights people, you have a moral understanding that makes your idea of “freedom” completely at odds with our own.
spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Following his absurd excuse of “I’m okay with it if it doesn’t affect me”, I think we need to make a list of things that don’t affect us directly so we can determine which behavior society should endorse: e.g. meth labs, child abuse, wife-beating, jack-rolling drunks, etc ad infinitum.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Alright. Enough of that. lol. *wipes forehead* Axe on May 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

“Come here much? What’s yer sign?”

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Umm, state recognition of gay marriage is the business of the government.. Doh’

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Only in the case that rights of one or both partners or are being violated by one or the other. Which i said in the rest of that post you mocked..Doh!

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

And I’m still waiting for you to tell me how it’s anti-conservative to support the concept of age restrictions on driving. Do you support 5 year-olds being allowed to legally drive on highways? blink on May 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

He’s irrational. He said above that redefining marriage as male/male female/female was not redefining marriage. Go on, look it up. I ain’t kiddin’.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Everyone making the argument that same-sex marriage is not a redefinition of marriage should have to explain who is the husband and who is the wife in a marriage between two men.

If it’s a ‘marriage’ without a husband and wife, then how can anyone claim marriage was not redefined?

tom on May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Sometimes a pomegranate is just a pomegranate.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM

lol

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Sometimes a pomegranate is just a pomegranate.
splink on May 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM

8-)

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:32 PM

They are two different questions. Now that you’ve answered the first one, I know that you are a pure libertarian. For you, homicide is not homicide, and it is just a consent form away.

For us conservatives, however, and for the authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, homicide is murder, full consent or not. That’s why you’re having a hard time on this thread. Like Obama and the Gay Rights people, you have a moral understanding that makes your idea of “freedom” completely at odds with our own.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

You only asked one question. And consent is the crux of the argument. You seem to be the one having a hard time with freedom, not me.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Ok, so one minute it’s defined as a man and a woman, next minute it’s defined as two women or two men.

That’s not a redefinition.

You are either brain dead or a liar to say that that is not a redefinition.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Yes, it’s a strawman. I disagree with your definition, and I disagree with your premise.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM

My understanding of DOMA is that it prevents a state judge from one state to legalize same-sex marriage for the citizens of a different state, who may prefer to keep marriage to its traditional definition of a heterosexual union.

Those who are proponents of same-sex marriage do not seem to be content for same-sex couples to hold a ceremony, make vows, and live together for the rest of their lives. They seem rather to want government force involved; force that can compel one to agree with an expanded view of marriage that one may, for deeply held religious beliefs, find preposterous.

So, I agree with Dante that the state should be removed from the matter altogether, and that if same-sex couples want to consider themselves to be married, then they should not be legally prevented. Neither should those who do not wish to recognize such unions as legitimate marriage be punished for not doing so.

What does this mean practically? That a pastor of a church cannot be sued for “discrimination” for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, or to allow church facilities to be used for the such a purpose. Or, that a businessman who gives benefits to spouses cannot be forced to extend them to the partners of same-sex couples who have declared themselves to be married.

cavalier973 on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

You don’t get to limit the resources we use just because you choose not to believe in what they have to say. That’s your problem, not ours. I notice you offer nothing to back up your beliefs. Either that means you have nothing to stand on, or…it means you have nothing to stand on.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Oh, not at all. I’m not limiting it; I’m laughing at it. How about we bring in oh, … The Great Gatsby or Tom Sawyer, since they have just as much relevance to the discussion.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Yes, it’s a strawman. I disagree with your definition, and I disagree with your premise. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM

No fooling, but you are reluctant to explain why redefining marriage as two men is not redefining the family, despite repeated requests to do so.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM

once again, conservatism has NEVER said freedom was absolute w/o conditions.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Then we’re in agreement.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Oh, not at all. I’m not limiting it; I’m laughing at it. How about we bring in oh, … The Great Gatsby or Tom Sawyer, since they have just as much relevance to the discussion. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” -Congress of the United States of America.

“While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.” -George Washington, “Father of Our Country” (The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

“The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” -George Washington’s letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343.

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” -Article III of the Northwest Ordinance (An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio), enacted under the Articles of Confederation July 13th, 1787, and re-enacted under the Constitution on August 7, 1789.

“Laus Deo,” Latin for “Praise God.” -Inscribed on the eastern face of the apex of the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., so placed as to be the first thing illuminated at sunrise in our nation’s capitol.

“In God we Trust.” -The official motto of the United States of America. It is found on the wall in the well of the U.S. Congress behind the seat of the Speaker of the House. It is also found in your wallet.

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.

“What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy God,” Micah 6:8. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handywork,” Psalm 19:1. “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not,” St. John 1:5. “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and withall thy getting, get understanding,” Proverbs 4:7. -On the walls of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

“One God, one Law, one element, and faroff Divine event to which the whole creation moves.” -Alfred Lord Tennyson, in the rotunda of the Library of Congress.

“The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits,” 2 St. Timothy 2:6. -Inscribed on the front of the Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” -Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence (Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” -John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

“The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” -Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II, 1871 (1833).

“Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature; establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts.” -Joseph Story, “The Value and Importance of Legal Studies,” a lecture delivered August 25, 1829 at his inauguration as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, cited in James McClellan, Joseph Story and the American Constitution (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1971), p. 66.

“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.” -Fisher Ames, Framer of the First Amendment (Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

etc.

These are like, the Founding Fathers or something.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM

He’s irrational. He said above that redefining marriage as male/male female/female was not redefining marriage. Go on, look it up. I ain’t kiddin’.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There’s another straw man. I didn’t say that at all. That’s your definition, not mine. Marriage isn’t defined by, nor dependent on, gender. Therefore, nothing is being redefined. It is still marriage, regardless of whether it’s between a man and woman.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Oh, not at all. I’m not limiting it; I’m laughing at it. How about we bring in oh, … The Great Gatsby or Tom Sawyer, since they have just as much relevance to the discussion. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

From the Constitutions of all Fifty of the United States of America:

Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land…
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…
Connecticut 1818, Preamble The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy…
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance… Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings…
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors…
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government…
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy…
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity… And imploring His aid and direction…
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe… In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction…
Michigan 1908, Preamble We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings…
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work…
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness… establish this Constitution.
Montana 1889, Preamble We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution.
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom… establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution.
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors…
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty…
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings…
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty… establish this…
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2 All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences…
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble We the People of the State of Rhode Island, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties…
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God…
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man…
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other…
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God…
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties… establish this Constitution.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Male-male/female-female physical relationships are inarguably different from male-female physical relationships. Period. A woman in a heterosexual physical relationship takes the risk with every physical union that she will become pregnant. (And this is true despite the use of birth control–I have too many friends who have had “oops” babies to trust that any method of prevention other than abstinence works 100% of the time–and even despite assurances from doctors that pregnancy is impossible because of physical problems. I have a good friend who had a “miracle” baby, even though doctors said there was absolutely no way she could become pregnant. Also, fertility in the later years varies from person-to-person, and with medical advancements–I read an article recently about a technique being developed that would enable ovaries to keep producing eggs long past the time it was previously believed such a thing was possible–no, relationships between elderly people are not the same as homosexual (non-childbearing) relationships. And adoption or the use of a donor to provide the missing genetic material so homosexual couples can form a family is still entirely different than the continuous, uncontrollable possibility that a pregnancy will result from a heterosexual physical union.) There is nothing discriminatory about recognizing that huge difference.

There is something discriminatory, however, in differentiating between male-male/female-female physical relationships and male-male/female-female non-physical relationships. For example, throughout the college years, some people have roommates they stick with longer than some people stick with husbands/wives. How is it fair that those roommates–who share appliances, utilities, and sometimes pets–can’t also share health benefits or file joint tax returns? A household is a household (under the pair-up-as-you-please principles).

Or how about a situation where spinster sisters or bachelor brothers live together through the last couple of decades of life? If the brother or sister dies, why shouldn’t the surviving sister or brother be entitled to receive the social security benefits of the deceased sibling? Because they haven’t proclaimed passionate love for the other or engaged in physical acts demonstrating that love? How is that fair (under the pair-up-as-you-please principles)?

The only logical means for differentiating between the many different associations possible between people is by recognizing that only one man and one woman together have the potential to produce offspring. And as the greater burden of that realized potential (pregnancy) falls consistently on one party to the act (the woman), it benefits society to recognize the value in treating that union as something different. (Because otherwise–if there were no protections for the women who are counted on to bear future generations of citizens, it also seems logical that fewer and fewer women would choose to bear those future generations.)

Recap: Male-male/female-female physical relationships are not equal to male-female physical relationships and so do not deserve equal treatment. And denying the huge difference in those unequal relationships actually undermines equality by eliminating the only rational means for differentiating between pairings (or groupings) of people.

butterflies and puppies on May 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM

These are like, the Founding Fathers or something.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Fantastic!

So what?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples

… There is no such thing as “same-sex married couples” -as “marraige” BY DEFINITION defines/involves a relationship between a husband (male) and a wife (female).

This is plain painfully obvious fact. To deny it is to discredit one’s position.

The absurdity of this nonsense is monumentally repugnant to reason and honesty.

It’s like saying “odd” numbers “discriminate” against “even” numbers… it’s so ridiculous.

All concepts “discriminate” against others by having definitions; “square” “discriminates” against “circle”.

“Heterosexual marraige” is redundant -there isn’t any other kind, and there isn’t the possibility of any other kind, since the concept, BY DEFINITION involves a heterosexual couple.

It really is just that simple.

GuitarMark on May 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM

There’s another straw man. I didn’t say that at all. That’s your definition, not mine. Marriage isn’t defined by, nor dependent on, gender. Therefore, nothing is being redefined. It is still marriage, regardless of whether it’s between a man and woman. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

So… marriage ceremonies from time immemorial have ended with, “I now pronounce you man and wife,” but it was just coincidental that there was a man and a woman standing there before the preacher.

Twenty years ago no one was talking about gay marriage. Now some moral imbeciles are advocating it. But there’s been no redefinition of marriage at all. Is that what you’re saying?

Then tell me, why are some people advocating for gay marriage? If it not only doesn’t matter, but never mattered, what sexes were involved, why do activists now militate for two men to be able to get married?

And by the way, gender means masculine/feminine, sex means male/female.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 4:01 PM

The Great Gatsby or Tom Sawyer, since they have just as much relevance to the discussion. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

These are like, the Founding Fathers or something.
Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Fantastic!

So what?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I don’t see F. Scott Fitzgerald or Mark Twain quoted even once by the Founding Fathers when discussing the basis of civil govt in this country, not even in the preambles to the state constitutions.

Not once.

Whaddya think of that?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Oh, not at all. I’m not limiting it; I’m laughing at it. How about we bring in oh, … The Great Gatsby or Tom Sawyer, since they have just as much relevance to the discussion.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Or the entire Hannibal Lecter series. That really put homosexuality in a true light. So, when you decide to use or not use any and all arbitrary sources upon which to base your premise, the more and more tenuous your grasp of the debate becomes. Your lack of boundaries isn’t freedom, but anarchy.

Interestingly enough, whenever anarchists have gotten their way, historically the first people to get the axe are the old intellectuals and politicians…and the homosexuals.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:05 PM

For example, gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all. Nor does it effect anyone else’s. To deny consenting adults their liberty using the force of government is not promoting freedom.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM

.
Rejection of Government recognition of God affects everyone.
And Government sanctioned/recognized same-sex marriage is contrary to recognition of God.
Government sanctioned/recognized marriage is not a Constitutional freedom; not even for heterosexuals. Period.
.
.

Also, I couldn’t care less about the Bible or what it says. That’s your code and moral system, not mine.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 2:22 PM

.
You’re certainly allowed to “care less”, because we (all of us) do have that freedom.
But us evil Evangelicals are not going to stop trying to get all of the “formal government recognition of God” re-instituted, just like it used to be before the end of WWII.
We don’t owe it to you, or any of the rest of our fellow citizens to compromise on this so as to avoid offending or insulting anyone.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Gay marriage is not conservative.

melle1228 on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

.
Is freedom?

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

.
Anything that contradicts God is not “freedom”.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6