Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

An advance for same-sex marriage

Judging by the reaction to my post raising a caution flag about the impending court decision in the Prop 8 case, I was a rather unwelcome skunk at the gay garden party. But the ruling out of Massachusetts that declared Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional is a reason for cheer. If it’s upheld, of course.

Yesterday's Post editorial and one from last year, when the case of Massachusetts resident and U.S. Postal Service employee Nancy Gill first came into public view, are a good primer on what the case is about. What makes the Gill case a relatively better one than the David Boies-Ted Olson vehicle to land before the Supreme Court is that Gill is not asking the court for anything more than fairness. Yes, marriage equality is all about fairness, too. But whereas the Prop 8 case is asking the courts to recognize the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed, the Gill case is about securing the federal benefits that come to those legally wed. As the March 22, 2009 editorial succinctly stated, “The plaintiffs aren't arguing that they should be allowed to marry or to call their relationships marriages; they are married in the eyes of their home state, which has concluded that there are no legitimate reasons for denying these couples the full rights and responsibilities of marriage.”

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro could find no legitimate reasons either. “To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without a meaning.... As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Let me point out that the Gill case was not the only relevant one decided by Tauro. He also ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it trumped states’ rights to set their own marriage laws. It was a satisfying outcome. But his decision has gay legal eagles and federal court tea leaf readers a bit mystified and concerned. “Perhaps more importantly, his Tenth Amendment arguments prove entirely too much,” Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin wrote last week about Judge Tauro’s ruling. “As much as liberals might applaud the result, they should be aware that the logic of his arguments, taken seriously, would undermine the constitutionality of wide swaths of federal regulatory programs and seriously constrict federal regulatory power.” Balkin supports marriage equality, fyi.

As nice as this decision is, it’s only the start of the long journey to the Supreme Court. All eyes are on the Justice Department and whether it will appeal the Tauro rulings to the Appellate division. I won’t be surprised or angered if it does. An administration traditionally defends the nation’s laws no matter its policy view of them. President Obama has made it clear many times that he wants DOMA repealed. (Got that, Congress?) And if the administration does appeal I hope it mounts the same limp defense it did in District Court. We can only hope that those same indefensible -- and unconstitutional -- rationales for unfairness will lead to the ultimate demise of DOMA.

By Jonathan Capehart  | July 12, 2010; 6:13 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: LeBron James and the American way
Next: LeBron James isn't Kunta Kinte

Comments

Judge Tauro found that the government has no legitimate interest in the definition of marriage, which is preposterous on its face. The most glaring example is the federal tax code.

Let's repeal DOMA, have the federal government define marriage as one man and one woman, and declare all gay marriages null and void per the supremacy clause. This would be the result of the DOMA repeal.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | July 12, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I am all for gay marriage; fully support it. It is no harm to me if gays marry and if it makes them happy, all the better.

However, the 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The above tells me that the federal goverment cannot rule for or against gay marriage and will likely pass it right back down to be settled at the individual state level. So, without a constitutional amendment, gay marriage is a state issue.

States can:

1. Allow only straight marriage
2. Allow straight and gay marriage
3. (Conceivably) Allow only gay marriage

Marriage laws are "state" laws, not "federal."

Posted by: RealTexan1 | July 12, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

If Marriage laws are "state" laws, not "federal", then perhaps marriage should be excluded from all federal laws and regulations. Each state will be free to define marriage however they wish and it will have no effect on federal laws.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | July 12, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"States can:

1. Allow only straight marriage
2. Allow straight and gay marriage
3. (Conceivably) Allow only gay marriage

Marriage laws are "state" laws, not "federal."
"

somewhat true, but remember, states must recognize another states' marriage- so
you can go to NH to marry, and be legally married in Alabama IF DOMA is repealed

Posted by: newagent99 | July 12, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

If Marriage laws are "state" laws, not "federal", then perhaps marriage should be excluded from all federal laws and regulations. Each state will be free to define marriage however they wish and it will have no effect on federal laws.

//////////////////////////////////////////
All, except the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution. If a gay marriage is legally generated in one state, then the couple should be treated as married as they travel to other states.

This could work. In fact, Las Vegas could run a thriving "drive-thru" marriage business and solve this problem. I think the opponents of gay marriage can live with it existing, they just do not want to have a hand in making it happen. Kind of like abortion. Folk will tolerate it, but not many want to contribute coin to making it happen.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | July 12, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

It's a sad day when this argument has moved from public disgust to merely a legal issue involving federal versus states rights. The legal system is reserved for those who have no morals or ethics. And no, I haven't been to church in over 30 years so I'm no bible thumper. The difference is, I don't shove that perspective down any one throats.

Rarely do I recall the government doing anything remotely correct and this is nothing but the latest example. I lived in an area for 30 years which was highly concentrated with gays. I've had my fill of the in-your-face lifestyle to last me a life time.

I have a novel idea; you want to get married - move somewhere where it's legal. Do what you want behind closed doors. No one really gives a cr@p. Just don't pollute society with your view of "normalcy" by demanding it be publicly accepted because as with all things else gay - this is just the beginning.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | July 12, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I have a novel idea; you want to get married - move somewhere where it's legal. Do what you want behind closed doors. No one really gives a cr@p. Just don't pollute society with your view of "normalcy" by demanding it be publicly accepted because as with all things else gay - this is just the beginning.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | July 12, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

//////////////////////////////////////

I think that's what most of the posts have been saying.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | July 12, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Funny how everyone becomes a constitutional lawyer when our bigotry is called into question. The "gays pollute society" comment is especially hilarious in a pathetic, eyes-wide-shut kind of way.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | July 12, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe you've summarized the federal question correctly in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case.

"But whereas the Prop 8 case is asking the courts to recognize the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed, the Gill case is about securing the federal benefits that come to those legally wed."

The right to marry was a question already answered by the California State Supreme Court, and then that right was voted away by a simple majority. The question thats being asked is, in my opinion, can a majority of voters repeal marriage rights for some people without violating the due process clause, and the 14th amendment, of the constitution?

Posted by: FlexSF | July 12, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

What the gay marriage juggernaut has created is a problem in language.

There are now two different definitions of the word "marriage" in the United States.

In five states and the District of Columbia, "marriage" is defined as the union of any two consenting adults.

In the remainder of the States, the definition of "marriage" remains the union of one man and one woman.

These are two completely different definitions, for two different kinds of unions.

The federal government is now faced with deciding what the purpose of its benefits are and which definition of marriage those benefits apply to.

When one word has one definition in one state and a different definition in another state, how does the full faith and credit clause apply?

Now we don't even know what the word marriage means in the United States for federal purposes. That is what must be sorted out.

Playing with language within the law is quite a dangerous thing.

Posted by: captn_ahab | July 12, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples speak passionately about “States Rights” and Federalism and so on … but the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed on couples by the FEDERAL government. They number 1,138 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Most significantly they have to do with tax law and Social Security, so it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married once they move to a neighboring state. On the other hand, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked.

This is why DOMA is transparently unconstitutional under both the 14th Amendment and the “Full Faith & Credit” clause. The fact that Judge Tauro found DOMA unconstitutional according to the 10th Amendment is just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. I know marriage equality for Gay couples makes some people uncomfortable. There are still many people today who are uncomfortable with people of different races marrying. But “popularity” and “constitutionality” are not always synonymous.

If the federal government wants to wash its hands of this and leave it to states to define marriage for themselves, the federal government had better be prepared to dispose of all the benefits of marriage under tax law, Social Security, and so forth. I wonder how many married STRAIGHT couples would be happy with THAT?

How is it that Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is considered a very GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

It has nothing to do with religion, because the United States is not a theocracy. It has nothing to do with parenting, because one does not need a marriage license to have children, nor is the desire or even ability to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

Like it or not, there is simply no purely constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

Posted by: PolishBear1 | July 12, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

captn_ahab, you need a new story.

Posted by: bobbarnes | July 12, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"I have a novel idea; you want to get married - move somewhere where it's legal. Do what you want behind closed doors. No one really gives a cr@p. Just don't pollute society with your view of "normalcy" by demanding it be publicly accepted because as with all things else gay - this is just the beginning."
_________________

This homophobic drivel is hilarious because as always, it's masked by your self-proclaimed knowledge and understanding of gays from "30 years" of experience. You display classic symptoms of someone who feels a deep-seated uneasiness, or perhaps even vitriolic hatred, toward gays. Language of "pollut[ing] society," and implied references to immoral and unethical behavior demonstrate that you have a profoundly biased understanding. In fact, you probably measure all gays by referencing a few flamboyant, half-naked men you once saw in a gay pride parade.

Get over yourself. No one is demanding that YOU accept them. In fact, most gays probably don't even know or care that you exist. You can cling to your homophobia to make yourself feel better, and no one will care. All that anyone is asking for is equal access to LEGAL entitlements that are conferred in discriminatory fashion currently. The Constitution guarantees "equal protection of the laws," and America was founded on the idea of equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Gays are not asking that you hug them and revel in their awesomeness. They don't even care if you think they're "normal." They merely want the same legal rights that you have because there is no rational reason to deny them those same legal rights. Instead, as your post aptly demonstrates, the only reasons are irrational and/or predicated on bare animus.

And contrary to what you say, you "shove" your "perspective" down many "throats" daily whenever you engage in your public heterosexual life (assuming you aren't just a self-hating closet homosexual). You've undoubtedly gone on dates, held hands or kissed your wife/girlfriend/other, gone out as a family, etc. You just think it's okay because it's "normal," but no one should have to adjust their lives to make you feel comfortable. Legal rights in the US cannot be negotiated based on such irrational emotions, and if you don't like the idea of same-sex couples, perhaps its you that should move to a country that's founding principles are not so egalitarian and progressive.

Posted by: dcresident11 | July 12, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I don't much like this full faith and credit argument for the simple reason that it then brings in the argument that "why should I, as a member of a state that doesn't believe that gay marriage is right extend the benefits of marriage (through my federal taxes) to a state that does?" In my state (WA) we the people voted to retain civil union rights to gays via a vote of our legislature and the people of Washington. I think that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause clearly requires the federal government to grant benefits to gay couples in our State. Many gay couples have kids to support just like the heteros. Doesn't it seem to make sense that the Federal government have some stake in defining how it bestows its benefits? It seems to me that we should have some kind of agreed definition of who does, and who does not qualify for federal benefits (i.e. how about two folks of either gender just shacking up together to gain benefits?) I've seen couples that live together for over 20 years but never marry, they raise kids, why shouldn't they get federal benefits? Let's hear it for the 14th Amendment and start (which our state already has) defining the types of relationships which warrant federal benefits. There's no way that the federal government is capable of policing it, so they'll have to fall back on the states anyway. Take the word marriage out of the argument so that people on either side can just concentrate on what is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Fergie303 | July 12, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Interesting column, and an advance for marriage. Only time will tell.

Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights,

Joe Mustich & Ken Cornet,
Justices of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

Re The Obama Administration,
Would his DOJ uphold slavery too?

Posted by: cornetmustich | July 12, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

captn_ahab, your post only makes sense in a world that doesn't exist. We play with language all the time, particularly in the law (and yes, I say this as an attorney). For example, states routinely define crimes differently than other states; we can't even all agree on one legal definition of "murder." Every state's law is different, and this has always been the case, especially as it relates to the definition of "marriage." The easiest, and most relevant historical example was anti-miscegenation laws. These laws defined marriage as only existing between couples of the same race; interracial marriage was a crime and not recognized as "real"/legal. The state laws were ubiquitous in the 19th and early 20th century, but they were slowly repealed by some states and declared unconstitutional in others. During all of this time, up to the point where the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional, the federal government never defined interracial marriage out of federal legal existence. States defined marriage as they wished, and the federal government honored those definitions. It only concerned itself with whether a state defined something as a marriage.

Your idea about the danger of playing with language is overstated because it's inherent in federalism. We don't need one definition of "marriage" that defines all the details, so long as it is offered on an equal basis. The federal government need only do what it has virtually always done -- accept marriages that states tell them are valid.

Posted by: dcresident11 | July 12, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The only thing that really pollutes our society is hatred and bigotry. Too many people can't feel good about themselves unless they have a boundary of hatred drawn around their lives. All people in the United States should have access to the same rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness - period. Let us not define ourselves by the vituperative rantings of the worst elements among us.

Posted by: dellius | July 12, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

dcfresident11 wrote:

"The easiest, and most relevant historical example was anti-miscegenation laws. These laws defined marriage as only existing between couples of the same race; interracial marriage was a crime and not recognized as "real"/legal. The state laws were ubiquitous in the 19th and early 20th century, but they were slowly repealed by some states and declared unconstitutional in others. During all of this time, up to the point where the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional, the federal government never defined interracial marriage out of federal legal existence. States defined marriage as they wished, and the federal government honored those definitions. It only concerned itself with whether a state defined something as a marriage."

The anti miscegination laws never redefined marriage, they merely added a racial restriction to what a marriage was understood to be throughout our history, i.e. one man and one woman.
The racial restriction was added to enforce Jim Crow and racial segregation. Inter-racial marriage had been occurring
throughout history across cultures.

Your arguments are so weak they are almost fatuous.

Same sex marriage is a complete redefinition, which some states and D.C. have chosen to accept. That is their right under the constitution. However, by redefining marriage they have created a question for the federal government and the full faith and credit clause.

What is the objective of federal marriage benefits, and how do they apply to states that have redefined marriage.

Posted by: captn_ahab | July 12, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Haha... Oh captn_ahab, if only you weren't so blinded by a historically narrow view. It's even more humorous because your post embodies the very playfulness with language that you suggest is "dangerous."

I'm not sure whose history is "our" history that you refer to when you say "they merely added a racial restriction to what a marriage was understood to be throughout our history," but it certainly isn't the history of some of the colonial American states. Virginia and Maryland defined marriage as same-race marriage (actually they defined it as white by default since blacks were property and not people with marriage rights) in the 1600s (other colonies, e.g., MA and PA followed), well before America even existed as a sovereign nation. Before that, there simply wasn't much "mixing" of the races, so there was no "need" for such laws. It was simply culturally understood that one married someone of one's own race, not to mention class, religion, and various other social statuses viewed as important historically (in virtually all societies, but particularly those relevant to our history as a nation). Thus, when "our" history began, multiple states defined marriage as a single-race institution. It wasn't "merely added" as an afterthought like you suggest. And, as much as you would like to believe otherwise, marriage has never been a stable "one man, one woman" institution either. Polygamy has been practiced by virtually all cultures at one time or another and has been quite common at times.

What is fatuous is your selective and ignorant compartmentalization of history.

Posted by: dcresident11 | July 12, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I want to marry my Rottweiler. She is a true gem !

Posted by: kalisdan | July 12, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If it weren't for HATE, the Right Wing would have nothing at all.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | July 12, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

For all who keep screaming, "Marriage is a 'State Right' not to be tampered by the Federal Government," I’d like to make THREE important points:

1) This SAME argument (State’s Rights) was used in cases for segregation, denying inter-racial marriages, denying women the right to vote, raising the legal drinking age, and slavery. Certain Civil Laws—such as equal marriage rights—should remain consistent throughout all 50 states. The only way to maintain that consistency is to have a Federal mandate.

2) Noone commenting that marriage is a "State's Right" has offered to relinquish your FEDERAL marriage tax credit. My (same-sex) spouse and I were married in CA in 2008. We are both professionals making above 60k a year. Yet, we each pay up to 40% in Federal Taxes each year, while our “Heterosexual Married” counterparts pay half that. Because, under Federal Law, my marriage is not recognized. Therefore, I must file as “single” and cannot take advantage of the Federal marriage tax benefits. Are you willing to give this up?

3) Noone commenting that marriage is a "State's Right" has suggested the travel expenses and confusion involved in having to register your marriage in all 50 states (individually). My spouse and I are legally married in CA… but ONLY on CA. We must physically travel to other states (which recognize same-sex marriage) and actually marry there as well. Are you willing to “eject” the clause that “All States recognize marriages from other states?”


Of course you want it to remain a "State's Right." The same reason you want "the people to decide.” There is absolutely no LEGAL reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage in this country. Letting the ‘State’ or ‘the People’ decide is the only ‘sure-fire’ way you can continue this discrimination. You know that and we know that. So please don't hide behind ideological “State’s Rights” reasoning.

However, if you want marriage to be a “State Only” sanction, Fine. Then make EVERY SINGLE HETEROSEXULA COUPLE in this country pay the same consequences (taxes and travel expenses) that my spouse and I have been paying for 2 years now. Put your money where your contradictory mouth is.

Posted by: MD_LA | July 12, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

For all of you who keep screaming, "Marriage is a 'State Right' not to be tampered by the Federal Government, I’d like to make THREE important points:

1> This SAME argument (State’s Rights) was used in cases for segregation, denying inter-racial marriages, denying women the right to vote, raising the legal drinking age, and slavery. Certain Civil Laws—such as equal marriage rights—should remain consistent throughout all 50 states. The only way to maintain that consistency is to have a Federal mandate.

2> None commenting that marriage is a "State's Right" has offered to relinquish your FEDERAL marriage tax credit. My (same-sex) spouse and I were married in CA in 2008. We are both professionals making above 60k a year. Yet, we each pay up to 40% in Federal Taxes each year, while our “Heterosexual Married” counterparts pay half that. Under Federal Law, my marriage is not recognized. Therefore, I must file as “single” and cannot take advantage of the Federal marriage tax benefits. Not to mention the Military, Medicare, Social Security, and other FEDERAL benefits you collect as a federally recognized married couple. We aren’t even entitled to them. Are you willing to give these up?

3> None commenting that marriage is a "State's Right" has offered to register your marriage in all 50 states (individually). My spouse and I are legally married in CA… but ONLY on CA. We must physically travel to other states (which recognize same-sex marriage) and actually register there as well. Are you willing to “eject” the clause that “All States recognize marriages from other States?” After all, that is the TRUE meaning of State Mandated Licenses. They hold NO bearing outside said State (not for ANYONE).


Of course you want marriage as a "State's Right." The same reason you want "the people to decide.” There is absolutely no LEGAL reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage in this country. Letting the ‘State’ or ‘the People’ decide is the only sure-fire way you can continue this discrimination. You know it and we know it.

So, please don't hide behind ideological “State’s Rights” reasoning.

However, if you want marriage to be a “State Only” sanction, Fine. Then make EVERY HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE in this country pay the same consequences (taxes and travel expenses) that my spouse and I have been paying for 2 years now. Put your money where your contradictory mouth is.

Posted by: MD_LA | July 12, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

".... irrational prejudice...."

That is a perfect description of what motivates opponents of gay marriage. No thinking. Just pre-judging people by stereotype and fear.

Posted by: kchses1 | July 12, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe that sane, supposedly rational people use terms like "gay juggernaut." If there is any karmic justice (or merely irony) in the universe, these people will have a child or other loved one drop by someday and announce, "Oh, by the way, I just joined the gay juggernaut."

Posted by: socaloralpleazer | July 12, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA HE'S THEIR BLOODLINE KIN TO BOTH BUSH, CHENEY AND THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM and QUEEN BEATRIX

PUBLIC HUMANE FUDICIARY TO OVERTURN AND STOP UNJUST/ INHUMANE TREATMENT BY OTHERS MIS-USE OF RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE FOR HATRED MIS-USED TO PERPETRATE CRIMINAL HATE CRIMES,The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 08-1371.(ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Radical Republicans repassed the Civil Rights Bill and were also able to get the Reconstruction Acts passed in 1867 and 1868.CIVIL RIGHTS)DEMAND HUMANE CIVILITY RIGHTS FOR ALL US CITIZENS AS THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS WANTED

THE US CONSTITUTION ART4 SEC2(1)THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, They are US CITIZENS OR NOT ? ,THERE'ER WANTING TO PROTECT OLD GLORY , 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C),

Magan Mc Cain, The McCAINS, The BUSHES , The CHENEYS'(Fascist Religious X-tians will turn fully ASAP on his SAME SEX MARRIED Daughter when he passes AND THEN SPEAK OUT OPENLY AGAINST HER,HER PARTNER AND CHILD, AS WITH ANY OTHER POLITICIAN, CEO, WEALTHY, CELEBRITY etc. WHO'S CHILD IS SAME SEX) , THE LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, BOTH MLKjr & Coretta Scott King 3 OUT OF 4 of their children etc support it and Bayard Rustin (His strategizer/ and speech writer "I Have A "Dream"too ,Obama is both (Bush/Cheney etc) of thier BLOOD KIN, Remember that too!!!!!!!!

DO NOT GIVE CONSENT(BY PUBLIC VOTE) A PRECEDENCE TO DISCRIMINATION/ JIM CROW SEGREGATION (SMOKE SCREENED AS Extremist RELIGIOUS FAITH IN "GOD") ON ANY US CITIZEN, THAT PRECEDENT OF CONSENT (BY PUBLIC VOTE) WILL BE USED AGAINST ALL MINORITIES AND WOMEN (NOW), CIVIL RIGHTS, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION etc IN THE NEAR FUTURE THE "CHILLING EFFECT" IS "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TO ALL US CITIZENS, (THE Facist RELIGIOUS SMOKE SCREEN OF JIM CROW PRECEDENCE BY CONSENT OF PUBLIC VOTE) PRACTICE HUMANE CIVILITY MATTHEW CHAPTERS 5,6,7, NOT SELF-RIGHTIOUSNESS

I MY SELF ENJOY BEING ABLE TO HAVE MULTI-RACIAL AND ETHNIC FRIENDS, INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE AND INTERRACIAL PEOPLE, FIGHT TO MAINTAIN THIS RIGHT ALSO (14th AMEND US CONSTITUTION FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE AS FRIENDS , FAMILIY, COLLEGES) DEMAND HUMANE CIVILITY FOR ALL US CITIZENS,NOT JIM CROW BLACK CODES BIBLE MIS-USE (WIKIPEDIA JIM CROW ,Anti-Miscegenation Laws, BLACK CODES , RADICAL REPUBLICANS CIVIL RIGHTS)

It's really dishearting to see that Minorities (Blks/Hispanic, WHITE FEMALES etc) are Consenting TO AND ENFORCING Discrimination and Jim Crow/ BLACK CODES SEGREGATION STRUCTURE, IT'S BEING ENFORCED ON SAME SEX BY OTHER MINORITIES !!!, THAT WILL ESTABLISH A LEGAL "PRECEDENT" (STAR E' DESISIS) THAT GO AFTER THEM AS WELL IN THE FUTURE AND OVERTURN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS etc (GRANTED TO THEM BY REPUBLICANS HISTORICALLY), BUT BY THEN NO ONE WILL HEAR THEIR PLEAS FOR EQUALITY BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOLD TO THEM , YOU ALL CONSENTED TO IT ON OTHERS,AND BY THE BINDING PRECEDENCE OF STAR E' DESISIS IT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU

Posted by: shaiarra | July 12, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Religious Marriage was a Ownership By Contract of Property over the wife and ALL she has by the Husband (Magna Carta). i.e. If She wins the LOTTERY then The Husband OWN ALL OF IT and she NOTHING because He OWN HER. (she's property, no rights) GOOGLE "BIBLE SLAVERY" FOR BOTH QUOTES IN THE BIBLE AND HISTORY, NEVER DID THE BIBLE TELL THE SLAVE OWNERS THAT SLAVERY IS SIN , IT ALSO PERMIT A MAN TO SELL HIS FAMILY INTO SLAVERY TO PAY OFF HIS DEBTS, SO HOW MORAL IS THAT? THAT THE ABOMINATION, SLAVERY,IT IS MIS-USED FOR HATRED NOT CHARITY/ LOVE

CONTRACTS ARE A RIGHT For any US Citizen to enter into, A CONTRACT IS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, i.e. A WRITTEN CONSENT, AS THE US SCT SAID YOU MUST VERBALIZE YOU RIGHTS "CONSENT" etc

marriage was not for religious reasons, it was to forge alliances between tribes for battle support and/or to assure peace by blood agreements, native americans/ sumer/ egyptians/greeks, myans etc wikipedia marriage for its true history and how it constantly changes its purpose from each century

In the United States, marriage was a property transfer from Father to Husband (the daughter of one becomes the wife of the other) until the early 20th century, and inter-racial marriages could be prohibited as the law of the land until 1967. Go on the internet, and check out the Oneida Community's concept of ?complex marriage? from the mid 19th century. Talk about different! WIKIPEDIA " WOMAN SUFFRAGE" LAWS CHANGED THAT

THERE ARE MANY MEN AND WOMEN FOR BIOLOGICAL REASONS CANT HAVE CHILDREN, SO YOUR BELIEFS SAYS THIER USELESS? THEN YOUR FAITH IS EVIL AND ABUSIVE CATTLE, Equality , Why Can't a Man take on his Wife's Name in "Marriage Equality"? THE OUTDATED BIBBLE SAYSA Female BIRTH WAS a Loss Ecclesiastics 22:3, THIS IS NOT JUST, IT IS UNJUST BIBLE THUMPERS

THE US CONSTITUTION ART4 SEC2(1)THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, They are US CITIZENS OR NOT ? ,THERE'ER WANTING TO PROTECT OLD GLORY , 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C),

Marriage used to be at an earlier age. WIKIPEDIA "Betrothal"

Posted by: shaiarra | July 12, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

MARRIAGE IS A UCC "CONTRACT " NOT OWNERSHIP BETWEEN PERSON ie REAL AND ARTIFICIAL CORPORATION
(PRE-NUPS/ Legal Separation/ Annulments/ Divorce/ Child Support, The Courts are ALL Contractual Agreements)

The word"MARRIAGE" is in the "PUBLIC DOMAIN" for US CITIZEN Adults to use EQUALLY They Can Either Enter INTO or NOT without prejudies /Duress, it CANNOT be Patented/ Copy Righted /nor Trade Marked, Children, and Animals CAN'T Enter into Contractual Agreements so the Rhetoric about beastiality and polygamy does not apply,but bible does ok polygamy

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=marriage+is+a+contract&aq=0&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=MARRIAGE+IS+A+CONTRACT&gs_rfai=CrSAQ2I82TJSEB4GOzQTBueD_CwAAAKoEBU_Q-wV1

MILITARY SERVICE IS A UCC CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS, THE ALL US CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO ENTER OR NOT

GOOGLE: (THE US CONSTITUTION IS A CONTRACT WITH "THE PEOPLE"and A LIVING DOCUMENT) IT'S ALIVE

AS Jude Judy said in a broadcast about a women being sued by her husband mistress "MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT" U.C.C. (partnership),SO ITS LEGAL FOR ADULTS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (a LICENSE) , .IF "CHRIST IS A MALE AND MALE XTIANS ARE PART OF HIS "BRIDE" IS THAT NOT SAME SEX MARRIAGE, WIKIPEDIA "MARRIAGE" AND SEE HOW DIVERS AND CHANGING IT IS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND TIME

MARRIAGE IS A "CONTRACT" NOT A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" NOR "SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP" BETWEEN A MALE AND FEMALE THATS CALLED CONSUMMATE i.e. WE ARE ALL "CONSUMERS", IF IT WAS "MARRIAGE" ,THEN SINCE YOUR FIRST SEX ACT YOU WERE MARRIED THEN ,AND MISSED OUT ON ALL THE TAX BRAKES EVEN AS YOUNG TEENS, DID YOU NOTICE THE UCC UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LAW DOCTRINES? AND THEIRS MORE, ALL PEOPLE ARE VESALS (FEMALES) IN/ON WATER HENCE YOUR BODIES IS 80% WATER ON LAND AND BULIDINGS ARE ALL PHALLIC SHAPES(MALE) AND YET TO SHIPS (FEMALES Can MERGE ON THE SEAS AND REPRODUCE A NEW CARGO MANIFEST AT THE PORT (BIRTH=LABOR WORK) TWO OR MORE CORPORATIONS CAN MERGE (MARRY) AND REPRODUCE SUBSIDIARIES (CHILDREN). A BUSINESS ACT IS INTERCOURSE: MARITIME/ ADMIRALTY=STRAWMEN PEOPLE

Posted by: shaiarra | July 12, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

MARRIAGE IS A UCC "CONTRACT " NOT OWNERSHIP BETWEEN PERSON ie REAL AND ARTIFICIAL CORPORATION
(PRE-NUPS/ Legal Separation/ Annulments/ Divorce/ Child Support, The Courts are ALL Contractual Agreements)

The word"MARRIAGE" is in the "PUBLIC DOMAIN" for US CITIZEN Adults to use EQUALLY They Can Either Enter INTO or NOT without prejudies /Duress, it CANNOT be Patented/ Copy Righted /nor Trade Marked, Children, and Animals CAN'T Enter into Contractual Agreements so the Rhetoric about beastiality and polygamy does not apply,but bible does ok polygamy

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=marriage+is+a+contract&aq=0&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=MARRIAGE+IS+A+CONTRACT&gs_rfai=CrSAQ2I82TJSEB4GOzQTBueD_CwAAAKoEBU_Q-wV1

MILITARY SERVICE IS A UCC CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS, THE ALL US CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO ENTER OR NOT

GOOGLE: (THE US CONSTITUTION IS A CONTRACT WITH "THE PEOPLE"and A LIVING DOCUMENT) IT'S ALIVE

AS Jude Judy said in a broadcast about a women being sued by her husband mistress "MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT" U.C.C. (partnership),SO ITS LEGAL FOR ADULTS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (a LICENSE) , .IF "CHRIST IS A MALE AND MALE XTIANS ARE PART OF HIS "BRIDE" IS THAT NOT SAME SEX MARRIAGE, WIKIPEDIA "MARRIAGE" AND SEE HOW DIVERS AND CHANGING IT IS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND TIME

MARRIAGE IS A "CONTRACT" NOT A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" NOR "SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP" BETWEEN A MALE AND FEMALE THATS CALLED CONSUMMATE i.e. WE ARE ALL "CONSUMERS", IF IT WAS "MARRIAGE" ,THEN SINCE YOUR FIRST SEX ACT YOU WERE MARRIED THEN ,AND MISSED OUT ON ALL THE TAX BRAKES EVEN AS YOUNG TEENS, DID YOU NOTICE THE UCC UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LAW DOCTRINES? AND THEIRS MORE, ALL PEOPLE ARE VESALS (FEMALES) IN/ON WATER HENCE YOUR BODIES IS 80% WATER ON LAND AND BULIDINGS ARE ALL PHALLIC SHAPES(MALE) AND YET TO SHIPS (FEMALES Can MERGE ON THE SEAS AND REPRODUCE A NEW CARGO MANIFEST AT THE PORT (BIRTH=LABOR WORK) TWO OR MORE CORPORATIONS CAN MERGE (MARRY) AND REPRODUCE SUBSIDIARIES (CHILDREN). A BUSINESS ACT IS INTERCOURSE: MARITIME/ ADMIRALTY=STRAWMEN PEOPLE

Posted by: shaiarra | July 12, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

MARRIAGE IS A UCC "CONTRACT " NOT OWNERSHIP BETWEEN PERSON ie REAL AND ARTIFICIAL CORPORATION
(PRE-NUPS/ Legal Separation/ Annulments/ Divorce/ Child Support, The Courts are ALL Contractual Agreements)

The word"MARRIAGE" is in the "PUBLIC DOMAIN" for US CITIZEN Adults to use EQUALLY They Can Either Enter INTO or NOT without prejudies /Duress, it CANNOT be Patented/ Copy Righted /nor Trade Marked, Children, and Animals CAN'T Enter into Contractual Agreements so the Rhetoric about beastiality and polygamy does not apply,but bible does ok polygamy

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=marriage+is+a+contract&aq=0&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=MARRIAGE+IS+A+CONTRACT&gs_rfai=CrSAQ2I82TJSEB4GOzQTBueD_CwAAAKoEBU_Q-wV1

MILITARY SERVICE IS A UCC CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS, THE ALL US CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO ENTER OR NOT

GOOGLE: (THE US CONSTITUTION IS A CONTRACT WITH "THE PEOPLE"and A LIVING DOCUMENT) IT'S ALIVE

AS Jude Judy said in a broadcast about a women being sued by her husband mistress "MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT" U.C.C. (partnership),SO ITS LEGAL FOR ADULTS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (a LICENSE) , .IF "CHRIST IS A MALE AND MALE XTIANS ARE PART OF HIS "BRIDE" IS THAT NOT SAME SEX MARRIAGE, WIKIPEDIA "MARRIAGE" AND SEE HOW DIVERS AND CHANGING IT IS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND TIME

MARRIAGE IS A "CONTRACT" NOT A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" NOR "SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP" BETWEEN A MALE AND FEMALE THATS CALLED CONSUMMATE i.e. WE ARE ALL "CONSUMERS", IF IT WAS "MARRIAGE" ,THEN SINCE YOUR FIRST SEX ACT YOU WERE MARRIED THEN ,AND MISSED OUT ON ALL THE TAX BRAKES EVEN AS YOUNG TEENS, DID YOU NOTICE THE UCC UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LAW DOCTRINES? AND THEIRS MORE, ALL PEOPLE ARE VESALS (FEMALES) IN/ON WATER HENCE YOUR BODIES IS 80% WATER ON LAND AND BULIDINGS ARE ALL PHALLIC SHAPES(MALE) AND YET TO SHIPS (FEMALES Can MERGE ON THE SEAS AND REPRODUCE A NEW CARGO MANIFEST AT THE PORT (BIRTH=LABOR WORK) TWO OR MORE CORPORATIONS CAN MERGE (MARRY) AND REPRODUCE SUBSIDIARIES (CHILDREN). A BUSINESS ACT IS INTERCOURSE: MARITIME/ ADMIRALTY=STRAWMEN PEOPLE

Posted by: shaiarra | July 12, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

And the gays keep screaming for "marriage equality" what ever that is while ROME BURNS!!

Posted by: Oops1 | July 12, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

God will eliminate His special protection for the USA if we except gay marriage. It is a slap in the face to God who made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Posted by: ToddPollard | July 13, 2010 2:13 AM | Report abuse

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.


http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrisy. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

Posted by: shadow_man | July 13, 2010 4:04 AM | Report abuse

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

Posted by: shadow_man | July 13, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Posted by: shadow_man | July 13, 2010 4:19 AM | Report abuse

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Posted by: shadow_man | July 13, 2010 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Put it to a vote or have Congress pass a law. Keep this decision out of the hands of the courts, it isn't right or Constitutional. Now, I want to extend benefits to the trees in my yard that I plan to marry. If their lives are "cut short", I want to collect my spousal life insurance benefits from my employer!

Posted by: KDSmallJr | July 13, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

We should support more research to find the cause and cure for this abnormal twist of biology. There is nothing about being queer that can be defined by plain ole common sense.

Posted by: wrr123 | July 13, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

WHOOO HOOO! Congratulations Argentina, the first South American country to grant equality, love, and hope.

DOWN WITH BIGOTRY
DOWN WITH DISCRIMINATION
DOWN WITH HATE
DOWN WITH RACISM

May we march forward to a better world.

Posted by: shadow_man | July 15, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company