I guess I should have explained why it is that way. The "General" in the phrase is an adjective because it is a descriptor of the "type" of attorney being spoken of.

I guess we should have let the public decide on Brown v. Board instead of allowing Blacks to sue the government. Is that how that works?

This article is ONE government (a state - who has always had jurisdiction over marriage) suing another government (federal - who has NEVER had jurisdiction over marriage) of the reservered rights of the first government.

When do we get to vote on YOUR civil and human rights Joseph? I say we remove all rights from people with the name Joseph Craig. It's not discrimination since it pertains to ALL individuals with the name Joseph Craig.

See how that works?

What is the answer mr. craig ?

Set back quietly and hope the polititions do the right thing...Eventually...When hell freezes over...And pigs fly ?

Thanks but no thanks.

Considering that in this country believing in "God" is not a requirement for "civil marriage." Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims (who believe in Allah - not the Christian "God," your "ordained of God" arguments fails.

Historically speaking, the ceremony and blessing of marriage was a Pagan ritual before it was hijacked by religion. I'm sure you will reject this statement as you probably take the "Bible" as the only "truth" that you will accept. In fact, marriage via governmental institutions has been around longer as an issue of property tranfer rights than religion itself.

Sure, you are entitled to your "beliefs," but your beliefs END where my rights begin as they pertain to the law.

Religious marriage yes BUT not civil marriage and for that matter, your god wasnt and isnt the only god to oversee religious marriage miss murphy.

But just looking at the christian god, he apparently didnt see anything wrong with polygamy or forced marriages let alone heterosexual marriages so your argument falls a bit short.

Well said mr. hershey and one other thing miss murphy...I find it very hypocritical of you to be claiming concern over seperation of church and state when you fundementals are wanting to legislate your "morality" onto the rest of us through goverment enaction of laws based on your religion while at the same time, you cant stand it when the goverment says "no" to you.

To reply to your post that others jumped on. I agree that you have a right to your opinion and I see you take into consideration Gaddy's argument. However, there are hundreds of thousands of religions, most we call mythologies now, that existed long before the abrahamic dogmas and they had marriage. The name marriage is actually pagan not christian, jewish, or islamic, and pagans believed in many gods not just one. They were polytheistic so you cant really label the marriages of all with your idea of marriage by one.

I dont believe in any mythology (religion), and I have read Gaddys paper five times now... however I have read far better explanations from Dr. Rev. Mel White, and Doctors like John Gottman for support for same sex marriage that hinge on what anthropologist have to say over theologians. They dont go into consideration of "civil unions" because they, like anthropologist understand that the word marriage is vastly essential for codifying life term relationships between consenting individuals.

I was glad however when Gaddy realized how denigrating civil unions are when compared to marriage. However, his idea of making the government strip the marriages of "all" and replace them with civil unions; to appease the "few" bigots seemed like a lapse of reason and logic, especially after he made massive points about how government needs to get out of our personal lives.

If you really want a good answer to marriage dont just read Gaddy, read what the American Psychological Association has to say, and what the American Anthropological Association has to say.

I will give you a head start with some files from Soul Force.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

http://www.soulforce.org/article/1365

http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/false_focus.pdf

Please read them. Thank you.

-Chris

You DID make a claim (as if it were fact.) If you don't recall here is what you said, "Marriage is ordained of God." I refuted your opinion with historical FACTS.

And stating that "your beliefs END where my rights begin as they pertain to the law," is NOT an attack, that too is a fact.

How you jump to the conclusion that I "attacked" you, is not only absurd it is insulting, not only to me but to our entire educational system, and says more about you than it does me.

I don't think we are too far from each other in our positions as it pertains to marriage equality for same-sex couples, but you bring questions upon yourself when you make a claim without backing up that claim with facts and evidence.

I graduated with a degree in Political Science and a minor in Philosophy. I chose those two as they are intertwined. Poli Sci, to better understand the political sphere, and philosophy to better understand argumentative structure.

One thing that has gone on for entirely too long is that people have shifted the burden (fallacious reasoning) from proving that insist there is a God, to those who believe that God does not exist. And by making the claim that "marriage is ordained by God," you are claiming that only she has the power to ordain marriage. When in fact, this is a secular nation with secular laws that afford magistrates of the court the power to oversee the legal aspect of marriage.

I would like to ask you a question, are you willing to go down to your county administration building (or whatever it is where you live) and have your legal marriage converted over to a domestic partnership?

Well, I congratulate on "walking the talk" sort of speaking. What state do you live in?

My assumption (forgive me for assuming) is that your husband is over the age of 62 which would be the only logical reason for converting your legal marriage to a domestic partnership.

The government doesn't "regulate" anyone's marriage. They cannot regulate whether or not you or your husband cheats. The government didn't tell you where you could get married.  What the government DOES regulate are the rights, benefits and responsiblities granted to married couples by the government. That is NOT a regulation on your marriage.

Did the government force you to convert your marriage? Or was it a conscious choice? It sounds to me that it was a conscious choice.

It's kind of interesting that since you are now a "domestic partner" you refer to yourself as a slave. It's as if one relationship (legally speaking) is "better" than the other. It's also as if you now are saying you no longer believe that your relationship is "ordained by God," and that you no longer live your domestic partnership by "GODS law."

So are you saying that there should be no governmental rights, benefits, or responsiblites to marriage? Meaning that suppose one of you were to be involved in a car accident on the way home from work, your legal spouse shouldn't be able to make the medical decisions on your behalf? Because that is just ONE example of the rights, benefits and responsibilities that you seem to think the government shouldn't grant to married couples if you don't believe that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

The real question isnt Why does the government, but rather why does religion have the power to regulate civil marriage. Doma was not written with consideration and interpretation of the constitution, but rather one religious point of view after a scare when Hawaii legalized gay marriage. That lasted for a short period of time before its voters stripped LGBT of their rights.

Here's the deal, Marriage is a federal, human, now constitutional right (thanks to Virginia v. Lovings and then the prison marriage). I agree that the government has no right to regulate marriage away from segments of society just for the fact they happen to be homosexual or bisexual. However, in such cases, like Gaddy mentioned, people need to get over their narrow definition of one thing and see the that marriage has two definitions.

What Hawaii did and then what California repeated, then factor in DOMA and DADT the religious politicians have been proving that bipartisan-ism and sometimes democracy is a failure when it comes to human rights, and that one cannot separate his or her dogma from their ethical and critical thinking faculties. This is when people need to realize that the constitution and the declaration of independence is not a sword, but a shield. A shield that is there to protect the rights and liberties of citizens.

If one decides to use their faith, their beleifs or even their ideas of wisdom to strike at the shield, in time their sword will be broken and they will be left defenseless. Once they are seen as weak they will become the targets, and they will lose their rights Just like how they tried to strip and negate the rights of those they were trying too hard to strike at through the shield.

If religions and bigots continue to push and strike out at progress, science, and ethical and equal treatment of those different from them, the people will eventually turn against them and they will be left behind. However, to stop such hate mongers will our freedoms be left behind as well? That is my fear and as the dark fires of hate build and burn down more innocent lives I see more people of sound minds ponder how far our freedoms should go. When you limit freedom to protect the lives of others, even with the best of intentions, you eventually destroy freedom. And you know that when people start to question how far our freedoms have gone, you know that hate appears to be winning out over love.

Debra, I'm sorry to hear that you have been faced with such a hardship by your deadbeat husband. But let me tell you, you did NOT convert your "marriage to a domestic partnership (DP)." You appear to not understand what a domestic partnership really is. First of all, Ohio doesn't offer DPs, and therefore would have been impossible for you to "convert your marriage to a domestic partnership." Perhaps that was the arrangement you and your husband made in the household, but legally speaking you were still "married."

You  claimed that many people have not had to make those emergency medical decisions, and totally ignore that many people have had to make those emergency medical decisions. I am one of those such individuals who HAD to make one of those emergency medical decisions. And guess what, because we were not "married" his mother decided to challenge the LEGALLY documented medical power of attorney in federal court (because she lived in another state.) Guess what, she won. Why? BECAUSE WE WEREN'T MARRIED and she was granted full medical responsiblity due to DOMA! So much for "planning ahead," as we did that!

The problem that you encountered is with your husband and the divorce laws screwing you over. But you are misdirecting your anger at marriage in general. I do agree with you when you made this statement: "If each party contributed equally, there would be fewer divorces, this can apply to heterosexual or homsexual couples." But at the same time, equal is a subjective term. For example, one spouse/partner may be doing ALL of the housework and taking care of the kids, while the other is out working and bringing home the financial support. I'm not saying that this is what was the case in your marriage, I'm saying that this is a very real scenario.

As far as him claiming 22% of your disability, I personally don't know how that happened nor do I know all the facts in the case. HOWEVER, from what you have stated I would have to agree with you and that it is an unfair and unjust judgment. Is it disability through Social Security? Or through a private disability insurance plan?

From your initial post it appeared as though all you were trying to do was to bash the institution of civil marriage. There are many protections granted to people under civil marriage laws. Are there unintended consequences? Of course (ie. your scenario, among many others) that is par for the course of public policy.

For some of us, such as those same-sex couple in Ohio, have absolutely zero rights or protections as it comes to their partners. There is no legal protection to transfer of property (upon the death of the individual,) as the "family" of the deceased can come in and challenge the individual's will in federal court because of DOMA. A "family" member of a patient can challenge the medical power of attorney in federal court and the partner will likely lose the challenge because of DOMA. The list goes on.