Government control and regulation of marriage is the right of the slave owner to regulate the procreation of owned slaves, just as a cattle farmer has a right to determine which bull services which cow.

Any adult man (male or female) who uses and is identified by the legal identity name owned by the State is of 'slave status' as far as the State or UNITED STATES is concerned. The American people have been made slaves by the unauthorized use of the State owned name with which they have learned from childhood to identify themselves. The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution makes the Government's imposition of involuntary servitude constitutionally legal, as Government is an incorporated body , and thus a make-believe ship at sea, under maritime law where an accused is guilty unless proven innocent. 

Free will adult people do not need Government permission to live together, and play with each other's body in privacy, if they wish to do so. Only the negative form of the Golden Rule imposes any moral restrictions on an adult human relationship.

I totally agree!!

Hey; Does anyone remember when interracial marriage was illegal in America? Why is it we always must have one group of people to discriminate against?  Are people just not happy unless they are persecuting someone? Heck; Women are still discriminated against with regard to employment, pay, etc. Why is this still happening? Do we have no more sense than to think that any one gender, race, or sexual orientation is better than the other? How ignorant is this in the 21st century? You would think we would have gotten past all this by now. I don't care what your Bible says. It is antiquated and provides no basis for the equal, non-discriminatory treatment of your human brothers and sisters, which incidentally; was advocated by your Jesus.  If God was discriminatory then I am SO glad I'm an atheist.

leaving DOMA helps no one. It prevents any marriages of same sex couples from receiving any of the 1138 "important" rights to marriage. It prevents same sex couples in married states to transfer their marriage rights to states that dont have marriage equality. Abridging ones rights to transportation of those rights is a federal crime as stated in the constitution. It also prevents same sex couples from the social status of being married. DOMA is a hugely discriminatory policy. Leaving it alone is like leaving the Jim Crow laws alone. Not a smart move.

It doesnt matter if all fifty states enact marriage equality with DOMA if my fiance stays beyond his visa, because I cant sponsor him under DOMA, I risk my career and life. That is not fair. DOMA was created to segregate LGBT. Segregation is wrong no matter what rhetoric you want to throw at it. DOMA must go. By repealing DOMA we can get the federal government out of our lives and relationships, which is not its purpose to begin with.

Seth please spend some time reading DOMA and its policy, then you will understand why it must be repealed at all cost.

This is why we need marriage equality.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/table_of_contents.php

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=why-marriage

OH and DOMA "GIVES" power to the federal government to regulate marriage, the thing you are against.

I don't think you are getting the point of my post.  DOMA is just a result of backward thinking, just as begging the government for rights that every human should have is backward.  You post assuming that I am in favor of leaving DOMA in place, quite the contrary.  I am in favor of simply cutting the government out of that part of our lives altogether.  I'm talking about deconstruction of a part of government that has been given power over us all, anything less will just become a partisan P*$$ing contest. 

I'm also getting a sense of reactionism from your post... I'm really someone who supports your cause and you go to Jim Crow laws because of verbiage you disagree with. Reading it again I could have been clearer that I meant that energies would be better spent getting the government out of all marriages completely rather than fighting a single piece of discriminatory legislation. I understand that you feel like you are fighting on all fronts sometimes, but really I'm not against you.  I just happen to want the same thing in different ways. 

OK glad you clarified that. Could you explain how the government should completely get out of all marriages after they repeal Doma?

When people discuss this, to me it means, ending spouses from collecting social security from their partners, ending pensions, health benefits, income tax, transportation of legal rights as a couple, Child adoption and custody rights, immigration etc. If it is anything I feel states need to get out of marriage, since many of the most important rights are federal and not state. If kept as a state issued claim it would still be like jim crow where people in certain states same sex marriages could be regulated to mean absolutely nothing. Stats that officially ban same sex marriage could regulate same sex marriage to have little to no rights. This would be because the state would have absolute power over marriage. So what is a person to do if they have to move to a state because of a career change and that state all but bans any rights for same sex marriages?

Sure we can win the name marriage, but the rights would be up in the air for each state. Transportation of the name would be valid but not the rights. So inevitably we crawl out of one unconstitutional hole and fall into another. States have the right to regulate taxes, laws, etc, but when it comes to constitutional rights that is the domain of congress and federal courts.

Marriage was named a constitutional, and fundamental rights by the supreme court during Virgina v. Loving. However that case made a precedent that marriage is a fundamental right that states do not have the power to deny to citizens and power over the federal government. However many states that banned interracial marriage continued to place restrictions on couples who were in interracial relationships. Had it not been for the federal government many couples would have suffered because of racist politicians and law makers in their states denying them full equal rights.

When it comes to constitutional and fundamental rights states should not have jurisdiction for restriction. Washington state is another fine example that states should not have the power to regulate rights. Domestic Partnerships, while segregation and second class status for same sex couples can give them all the same state rights for marriage. However the people of that state spoke out and wish to place human rights up for a vote, which is unconstitutional by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, to strip rights from same sex couples.

This happened back in the late forties and all through the fifties when interracial couples wanted equal treatment under federal and state law. It ended much like the bans on same sex marriage today, until the case of Virginia v. Lovings went to the Federal Supreme Court. Why the Court should have to declare once again that marriage is a fundamental, constitutional right that can not be denied or abridged by the states in the case of same sex couples is beyond me. They already stated their opinion back in 61 and made it vague enough to apply to same sex couples today. Every science organization across the world considers LGBT to be a minority group, but a group of people none the less who suffer because the federal government has not caught up with the times. However it appears that once againthe federal government will have to restate the Lovings case decision, just with same sex couples, and force all states to recognize all same sex marriages as equal and cannot deny same sex couples from receiving marriage licences from the state.

Another state issue having to catch up with federal government regimen.

Perhaps I am leaping before I look but that is why I ask again. Could you please exlain what you mean by getting federal government out of all civil marriages?

In a nutshell, remove the state from defining religious marriage. The civil aspect of marriage (I would prefer civil union to all couples in the civil sense) should only extend as far as necessary to lay a framwork of basic rights and responsibilities as regards child rearing, property, inheritance, medical decisions and unfortunately the decision to end such an arrangement (divorce).

Civil marriage has always been held in this country as separate from "religious" marriage. It should stay that way with a broader line defining civil marriage from religious marriage. I do feel a line is there but the religious right has been doing a great thing by using time and misleading lies to erode the reality of the situation. What is really sad Laurie is that back 110 years ago people said the same thing you did but it was against black people trying to get married, then just 50 years ago they did it with interracial couples.

Civil Marriage is what all marriages are in the eyes of the government, you cant get a marriage licence from anyone but the state. So really in this country religious marriages are nill. Although clergy can sign the licence instead of a judge the church has no power over marriage. Also think about the religions that support same sex marriage and bless same sex weddings and unions. But also think that by your way of thinking you want the federal government to dissolve millions of secular, non religious marriages and give them separate but equal institutions to appease a few backwards bigots. That's just poor middle ground thinking, and anyone who knows critical thinking, knows middle ground is a logical fallacy.

Please read these articles from these sites. Thank you.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090808_9125.php

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/table_of_contents.php

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=why-marriage

DITCH DOMA, certainly!  I don't really recall disagreeing with this at all... I just don't understand why it matters

We accomplish so much more for civil rights if we ditch "marriage", as a word in use legally... which is what I proposed, put another way.

So again I say, let's ditch any concept of marriage  in that the government has a hand which also contains obvious religious reasoning.  And the use of the word "Marriage" becomes the religious term.  Voila!  DOMA is impotent.

We need to "legally" end the existence of a legal concept of marriage with legal ramifications... or a definition will remain necessary on the books.

Certificates of Civil Union could easily provide the same rights and priveledges just by filing a bit of paperwork in the court, same as now for "marriage".

In order to have civil unions, laws on the books  that currently bend to the term "marriage" need to be changed so wherever the law mentions marriage or "spouse", it would refer to any individual for whom there is a valid civil union contract to another person in all legal considerations for spouse status.   

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS concept and CONSTRUCT.  And within religious constructs we find arguements that are anti-gay.   I didn't put those arguements there, but why waste energy bothering to try to change THOSE!  Better to get religion OUT OF POLITICS if you want any sort of real equality.  I don't really hear anyone here defending DOMA, or the need for it except religious fanatics who want to keep marriage "holy"...

So give "marriage" back to the church.  It's their concept, and let them and their flock keep matrimony holy. Ha!

Might then DOMA go the way of the "rule of thumb", or other laws that seem ridiculous now?  An eventual embarrassment to anyone who endorsed such a thing....Unenforceable, outdated and irrelevent fodder for comedy. 

ALL the civil laws you mentioned change, ONLY when you meet this definition of "married" that barfs up religious connotations.   

You said, the religious right's been doing a great (?) thing by using time and misleading lies to erode the reality"   

Wow, did you forget that unfortunately, this is exactly what they're ALL about?  Fairy tales. 

Are you religious?  If so, you actually might be forbidden to be gay, or be considered a sinner.  That is a fact, although Churches change to meet the need for warm bodies in the pews... ahhh, hypocricy!!  So.... profitable!

Our laws need to reflect what we democratically MUST allow by a CIVIL ARRANGEMENT so as not to impose upon the civil rights of the individual regardless of their beliefs, sexual preferences, religion, color, etc. etc....

Let's change laws that reflect an over-arching reality that needs to change...

What ceremony bonds you to another should be no more ordained or recognized by any laws than what I have for entertainment at a birthday party.

There has to remain a difference between democratic law vs. religious constructs. 

Therefore, we DO need religious constructs, or it becomes a free-for-all in creating our reality through concepts held by the masses, sometimes held very dearly.

This isn't a grab for profitable URL names... this is a battle over who owns a concept, church? or state?

The entrenched nature of, not only discrimination against gays, but what is actually a religious discrimination is currently not only allowable by law, but this is religious discrimination now required and endorsed by DOMA!

DOMA isn't dumb, on it's face, but the legal control of "marriage" IS dumb as is the continued use of the word and the concept in legal terms.

Through DOMA, our government is defending a religion's very specific construct.   

This will change.  Too many Americans (and our constitution's premises) call for laws to facilitate a truly free, democratic society, not restrict it.   Right to the pursuit of happiness and all that...

Religion entrenched in politics is becoming big problem for everyone, thus the support on the DOMA issue from breeders.  Don't knock the support from anywhere it may come.  These are Americans with respect for freedom. 

There is WAY more than gay rights on the cutting room floor. 

Truly equality isn't so simplistic and one size fits all as to allow for a push for, "I'll have what they're having". 

There are issues of Corporate interests entrenched in politics that are dangerous as well.  An oppressive system affects us all.  We need to keep focus on the issues for the rights of everyone.  

Certainly there is a big picture we need to see.  There is a  "democracy problem" that religious leaders and corporate leaders have with "some" of us... this presents itself as an assault on the rights of all of us who value and understand the nature of true freedom. 

Let's stick together in this fight. I don't want to fear my government's involvement in healthcare or anything else. We need government if we're not falling into chaos... so it requires we be hypervigilant to keep them honest and accountable.  I want the government to fear OUR involvement... which is how it SHOULD be.

Holy Matrimony is, unfortunately the domain of the church. Sorry, but the church can choose to segregate, but not on our law books. Law MUST not segregate us. It is realistic and the right thing to do to leave them to it and focus on re-defining civil laws to reflect the rights in the spirit of true freedom. Period.

Gays, married or not, will never have the same social consideration by "everyone" as long as you approach society with the idea that people need to give up the freedom to retain their religious standards, regardless of how absurd they may seem, just the same as these religious standards not your own should not be imposed upon you.

Semantics affects everything in the legal environment.  Legal definitions shape our realities.   If you want to change the collective conscious, add something to the law, because failure is assured if looking to take something from the church that it's held worldwide for thousands of years.In the collective conscious, "marriage" has always been a religious construct.

Society needs desperately to educate itself and work to get beyond narrow shortsightedness and piecemeal compromises disguised as real effective changes.

Gee, I hope I am clear here, and I apologize for rambling or repetition.  Discussions and debates like this are vital when they can enlighten us by getting on common grounds.  I certainly do not mean to offend anyone with any ignorance I may have of facts, and I'm not discounting the possibility that I tend to entertain what seem like pipe dreams on occasion too. :P 

Laurie... *shakes head in dissapointment* Marriage was never a word that the church created. In fact it was created long before the christians took it from the pagons and perverted it as their own. In fact the American Anthropological Associations has found historical evidence that the abrahamic dogmas were harshly agiasnt marriage before taking it in as their own. So why should we strip all of marriage to appease the bigoted few. That is just idiocy at its finest.

Marriage has and will always be a legal contract joining two consenting adults in society for privlidges that help society and the couple.

Please read up on the differences between "CIVIL" marriage and "RELIGIOUS" marriage. For a small little factoid religious marriage has no legal implication in this country and it never has. A couple still needs to get the license from the state. The only thing a clergy can do is sign it in place of a judge. Thats it.

What is really sad is that people back in the late 1800's had the same ideas as you for allowing black people to marry, then agian when interracial couples wanted to marry. It was all because religions perverted the definition of civil marriage with their own, ever changing rules on marriage.

Its similar how supports of gay people are surprised to find out I am gay because their idea of a gay person is a femboy fucktoy. Please actually read work done by the APA, the ASA and the NASW on why marriage is a social and legal institution that cannot be taken away from people and all should have a right to it. Also please read up on countries like the UK who forcibly divorce same sex couples from countries with marriage equality and give them second class "civil partnerships." All the while heterosexuals can get married.

Anything but marriage is a failure and there is mountains of evidence that support that. Oh and btw common ground or middle ground is considered a logical fallacy. Should we find common ground with terrorist? I dont think so. Just to point that out. I wont, nor should anyone, support  or accept half assed equality. Equality is equality. It's time people start realizing its time to give equal people their full equal rights. Marriage is a fundamental, constitutional right. Virgina v. Lovings made that absolutely clear. We should not have to change the defintion of civil marriage to apease religious marriage. They are two seperate institutions and only civil marriage is valid in this country.

I am glad you have your ideas but once you mentioned middle ground you basically defeated yourself. I have yet to find one religious married couple that would give up their civil marriage for a civil union to appease us LGBT. More often than non they would rather allow gays to marry then strip everyone of their marriages.

We have civil marriage, and religious marriage, we dont need to create a third kind of institution, nor do we need to eliminate one.

"Gays, married or not, will never have the same social consideration by "everyone" as long as you approach society with the idea that people need to give up the freedom to retain their religious standards, regardless of how absurd they may seem, just the same as these religious standards not your own should not be imposed upon you."

And people said the same against black people and women having the right to vote. Also I am not asking for religious people to give up their freedoms. They have no legal bearing on Civil Marriage nor should they. That is a federal and state sanctioned right. They have all the freedoms to believe whatever the hell they want to believe and accept and reject who they will and want. We have scientology, enough said. By telling me we gays cannot or shouldn't have marriage but eliminate marriage all together is completely asinine.

Peace.

Marriage is actually both a part of religion AND a part of secular life...At least as far as it being honored in a ceremonial manner.

The real problems began when we got them mixed up with each other and the line became blurred to almost non-existance. 

What I beleve needs to be done is to re-draw that line and then put into place safe guards so that the religious aspect and the secular aspect never interferes with each other again.

There will always be religions that will discriminate just as there will always be religions that dont BUT the secular goverment should never have that option whenever and whereever you have two consenting adults.

I agree we need to re draw that line and to do so is by emphasizing there is, in this country, both religious marriage and CIVIL marriage.

Marriage itself discriminates, particularly now with DOMA in place, and allows only some citizens certain civil rights.  (1100 plus you say?) 

You can argue lots of stuff back to pagan practices.  Cannabalism for instance.  But pagan marriage ceremony was certainly a religious construct... and sorry, but they didn't live in a democracy or have a constitution.   NO comparison to our current climate.  We are out of the stone age and we need to think critically about what democracy is.   Nations need laws.   To change laws, you use our amazing system that is designed to weed out those that are discriminatory and then revise, redefine, or eliminate them.   Semantics on marriage were blurry and soft until DOMA.  The system allowed for refining to whom marriage laws apply.  That's why it's not stupid on it's face. (please ask any lawyer about the need for legal definitions of words and their hard, defining boundaries. )  DOMA is an underhanded way to block gays from CIVIL rights, yes.  But that's because marriage is ingenuously religious, always was!   It enjoys it's place in our law books because, as we now can finally see with DOMA,  religion has a hand in our government, our bedrooms, our lifestyles...  and has had for centuries now.  Feel it's grip?  The religious, and the sentimental traditional types inthis country want the word, the ceremony, the meaning... it is their way of thinking and let them have it. 

If it makes you feel better to use the word, then ok, Gay couples who join in a civil union and make it known to the world would, in the consciousness of society, for all intents and purposes indeed have a "marriage".  This would become less shocking fairly quickly, acknowledged, accepted, normalized, respected. Without testing the law.  And in most folks psyche, this is what's desirable about a marriage?  A marriage exists primarily in our psyches.  I hear unhappy married people say "We have no marriage".

Instead, you'd like to further entrench a religious concept and it's inherent tradition of discrimination into our LAWS?  Why?  How to mandate that religious traditions and consciousness be changed?  This is what many in this country see threatened here.  

And sorry, but you quite literally share common ground with these folks in our country. No logical fallacy, just geography. :) 

 A harsh judgement when you claim:"Its similar how supports of gay people are surprised to find out I am gay because their idea of a gay person is a femboy fucktoy. "

Wow. That's sort of a weird thing to say. You sound discriminatory even within the gay movement.  You think that's what most "supporters" think?  Ouch.  I'm a breeder and I'm far from being so ignorant.

Laurie I will repeat myself again. There is Civil Marriage and there is Religious Marriage. We want and we will not stop until we get Civil Marriage. That is the legal construct of shared dependence that gives people those 1138 federal rights and 200-1000 state rights. Those rights are in place so people can have an easier time building families, taking care of their spouse, social security, ect.

Religions can have their idea of marriages, but as time goes on religions will change their stance on homosexual people and include them as full members of their congregations. Rev Mel White is one of the leaders for this social change in religion.  However, they "shall'not have" everyone's civil marriage. The sad part is Laurie, people said the same things you did back when black people wanted to marry, and when interracial couples wanted to marry and the church was against both, during both times. Well guess what? Did that stop them? NO! And they got their rights. So why is it that gay people must give up their fundamental, constitutional right of marriage to religions?

While we are at it lets think about other important fundamental rights we can throw away to religion. Hey what about adoption, lets only let the catholic church handle adoptions. That's a great idea because hundreds of thousands of kids will never get adopted because they wont let gay people adopt.

Even better lets make sure the church handles all alimony and child support. We know how many fundamentalist churches look down on women as below men.... so that means men would practically be off the hook for having to pay out either.

Lets let the church handle social security, and pensions too while we are at it for spouses of the deceased. Unless that spouse is a part of the church I wonder what they might do with that money?

That for which I just explained is basically important aspects of Civil Marriage. As for Civil Unions you do not understand their implication into society by second classing and segregating gay people do you? Have you not read the studies from Vermont, California, Connecticut and the UK, that plainly state by sociologist that even given all the same rights to marriage, and even when years go by, people who cannot get married but only get a civil union, even if only gay people can get that civil union, they are still discriminated against and their relationships looked down upon. This is very bad in times of need. Because people play ignorant to civil unions and deny hospital visitations, judges still made spouses of same sex couples testify against each other in court, people screw up immigration efforts, etc. Anywhere in this country if you are married you are set.

Now just from logical standpoint. Does it seem effective and right to strip everyone of their marriage rights, completely spend billions of dollars in tax payer money (which we dont have) to revamp the entire system to say Civil Union, and Religious Marriage, or just allow gay people to marry? Repeal DOMA and BAM! Look at that! We really dont have to go any farther than the Federal Supreme Court to make sure all gay people in the US can get married. All it will take after that is a single day in court and everyone can get married. Or should we just do what you want to do and waste billions of dollars pissing many non-religious married couples off, and strip them of their rights and prove that someones idea of faith is more important than the fundamental rights of others? Real good idea.

Now Laurie I can understand where you come from on this side of marriage, but the fact is if you really want to know what the original marriage contract was about.... it was about trading goats for wives. Yeah... it really wasn't religious. It was invented by the pagans, and then it took off from there. Now marriage has a whole symbology of meaning and humanism. It went from a contract of property, to a contract of slavery, to a contract of oppression, and then in the 1930's it was redefined as a contract of love. Since then in the United States it has remained primarily a contract to celebrate the love, commitment, and sacrifice of two people.

Now on a final note about your final comment: that "femboy fucktoy" mentality is the minds of many people I have to deal with at my college who don't really know gay people. And Yes they are that THICK. They are the "woo hoo" gun-hoe supporters but I cannot tell you how many friggen times I have been told by supporters at my college that "I cant be gay."  "You cant be gay, you dont act gay, look gay, sound gay, etc gay..." Then I ask them "well how are gay people supposed to look, act, sound?" Despite being a rhetorical question they answer it with the bullshit "femboy fucktoy" stereotype. If you dont know what those two words mean, think of it is all the false negative and positive stereotypes about gays combined into one. OK?

People unfortunately at my college have this overwhelmingly strange idea of what gay people are, and its even more sad to say the city we go to college in has the highest gay population in Michigan and no one knows there are gay people. Why? because they follow the stereotypes like Dorthy and Toto followed the yellow brick road. Only this time it doest lead to the Wizard of Oz, its leads to gay people like me turning green like the wizard of Oz trying to correct them. Even greener when they argue with me and others about what and who gay people are. Can you understand my frustration on that issue now?

You know whats more sad then that? Having to break down the stereotypes for gay people. Gay people who believe they have to act a certain way or they aren't entirely gay. Thats about the time I start banging my head into a wall until the wall either cracks or my head starts to bleed.

Miss walker.

While it may be true that the idea of marriage may have ORIGINATED from the religious aspect, that doesnt change the fact that in the united states at least, we have BOTH a religious version of the marriage ceremony AND a secular version.

But now you got me wondering...In the original pagan versions that existed before the christian one...Did THEY discriminate against homosexuals ?

Looks like I got some researching to do.

According to the American Anthropological Association they did not, because marriage was originally a trade between goats and women.

Ok mr. marshall but what did the goats for women have to do with homosexuals ?

And...Yeah, unfortunatly, women were treated as cattle back then.

You first.

I did. Aren't you paying attention? Or are you just out spreading hate?

Why are you so defensive? Why are you making the assumption that I'm spreading hate because I don't agree with your morals?

I personally believe marriage is a union between two consenting adults. That's all. Adult  = >18.

Nothing else should be a requirement.

Juniper-

Is it hate to agree that two loving couples are equal and should be treated as equal, even though that one is a heterosexual couple, and the other is homosexual?

Or is it hate to deny equality, both social and legal, to consenting adults who by all religious means equate to the ideals of a perfect marriage, except they happen to be of the same sex.

Here is a paper you should read and then tell me who is the hater, you or Matt.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090808_9125.php

I am not hating anyone. Matt is the one who started hating me. I just think instead of changing the law to make marriage, AKA Holy Matrimony, get a civil union. You have all the same legalities, without the bringing Holy matrimony into it, changing marriage. I don't understand what all the fuss is. We can't just redefine everything to suit our needs. What is the problem with civil unions?

Matt,

You said, "you are dangerous and harmful to others" I can't find the post, but that is pretty hateful. You don't even know me.

I found it in my email, Matt, here is what you said

"Secondly...non-religious people shouldn't get married?

Lady, your opinions are dangerous and harmful to others."

This is why I am feeling the hate. Those are harsh words.

You said that marriage should only be done religiously and by God.

So what about people of other religions? People who aren't religious? Should they 'just not get married', then?

I wonder if you'll see why *I'm* feeling hate from you.

Marriage is a religious act. I am saying you can get a civil union. Why try to change a law. Why try to force a square peg in a round hole. Just get a round peg and be happy.

Civil unions =/= the same rights as married couples.

Segregation, plain and simple.

Juniper, religious marriage has no foot hold in law in the US. Although we have both civil marriage and religious marriage, there really isnt a legal side to religious marriage. If there was then religions would have to marry LGBT and they certainly do not. In fact they cant even really legally marry any couple. All they can do is sign the marriage license that is granted by the state instead of a judge. That is what marriage is in this country. It has never really been religious. For the entireity of this country there has always been Civil Marriage and a seperate non legal symbolic marriage through faith known as religious marriage. Gay people across the board are not asking for religious marriage, although there a quite a few christian ministers out there that do bless same sex marriages, we are asking for civil marriage, which is our fundamental constitutional right.

The only right religion has on marriage is being able to sign the marriage license, that is it. So in actuality it is people like you who are trying to change the definition of marriage to fit what you want not what others need. Which is sad.

However just like the many of you who tell us when you unconstitutionally destroy our founding fathers beliefs, our constitution's priciples itself, and strip us of our equal rights, "If you dont like the laws TOO BAD! Move to Canada!"

Agian please educate yourself on marriage in the United states. Read the courts ruling about transportation of rights in Malbury vs. Madison, and please read Virginia v Lovings or just watch the movie The Lovings to understand the marriage laws in this country.

If you want more information about marriage please read those links I posted elsewhere about marriage equality, and watch the movie Tying the Knot you can rent these two movies from any local library. Here are some more links for you to look at from The DepFox Family and Soul force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnYd1c7e_0

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

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

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

http://www.soulforce.org/article/lewis-smedes-video

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-debate-verdict-video

http://www.soulforce.org/article/mel-white-sermon-video

http://www.youtube.com/user/depfox#play/uploads/5/L5sqjsWnR-o

Miss bartlett...There have been many definitions of marriage even within the history of christianity and/or the other abrahamic faiths...

But...Marriage doesnt just belong to the abrahamic faiths nor will it ever.

There are many other religions such as wicca that has their own ceremonies not just for marriage but for other things as well although marriage is the subject here.

Like wise, as mr. marshall has pointed out...Marriage is also secular so really when you think about it, we have basicly 2 versions of marriage with the secular version carrying greater weight in terms of rights and priveledges in this secular nation.

I have no problems with keeping it that way as long as it is clearly understood that neither version should have power over the other simply because as I myself said earlier...There will always be religions that will discriminate just as there will always be religions that dont BUT a secular goverment should never be allowed to discriminate against its law abiding citizens.

Thats both my definition and my opinion on what marriage is in addition to it being a openly stated and celebrated committment between two consenting adults that love each other enough to want to be together long term.

I don't understand what this has to do with gay marriage. Don't tell me there is no domestic violence in same sex relationships. I won't believe that.

There is but it is significantly lower than with heterosexual couples. According to every medical association both mental and physical they state what Dr. John Gottmann says.

"Homosexual relationships are the vanguard of what heterosexual relationships could become." (J. Gottman PhD)

I think that can explain everything when taken on face value.

To preach that homosexuality is a sin is not a hate crime. To teach your flock to hate homosexuals is. Understand? They deserve the same equal rights as every other couple under the law.

No; Pastors should not be forced to marry gays if they believe it is wrong for them to do so. I see nothing wrong with civil unions at all as long as the couples involved are provided all the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

I just saw on the news this morning the Lutheran church is accepting gay members as clergy. AWESOME!! BTW; I am 110% HETERO!!! I simply believe in fairness and equality for all.

I simply cannot believe that the idea of homosexuality as a "Lifestyle" still exists. What will it take to prove to you people that homosexuality is like heterosexuality only with the feelings being directed toward the same sex rather than the opposite sex?  Let me try to put it in perspective. Are you sexually attracted to members of the same sex? No? Does the very idea of making love to a person of the same gender as yourself repulse you? It does me. Now; imagine yourself having those repulsive feelings at the thought of having sex with a member of the OPPOSITE sex and feeling attraction towards members of the same sex. This is what homosexuality is and yes; a person is born with it. Why I don't know. I just know that is how it is because I could never do it. Why? Because I'm not a homosexual. That is why I understand them because they are no threat to me whatsoever. I am very comfortable with my sexuality. I know what I am and I will never change.

Juniper perhaps you need to understand that clergy have no real right to marry a couple, only sign the licence. It is the states department who issues the licences, and the federal government who decides who can and cannot get married.

The only power religion has, other than distorting facts and evidence, is to allow a clergy to sign the state marriage licence instead of a judge. That's it. If you don't like that, that's too bad because that is how civil marriage and religious marriage work in this country. It is to keep church separate from state. Marriage in the United States has always been and always will be a "legal binding contract between two consenting adults for federal and state rights granted by the legal institution of marriage."

So in all realness stop trying to redefine civil marriage to be "between one man and one woman" because in actuality it is not. Futher more stop lying about how gays want to redefine civil marriage when they only wish to preserve the time honored tradition of marriage being a legal and secular institution.

Now on to Civil Unions. Civil unions are separate and unequal because they "DO NOT" confer all the same rights to civil marriage; more importantly the social name of marriage which defines the couples equal to heterosexual couples. However according to science, homosexual relationships are the vanguard of what heterosexual relationships could be, so... same sex couples are actually more stable that opposite sex couples, therefore one could say their marriages will be as well. So are you afraid of having to compete with same sex couples as who are more stable? I sure hope not because that is just childish by nature.

Take into account with your logic about civil unions. Everyone can get a civil union but only heterosexual people can get married? Do you see where you are going? If you dont understand, then let me spell it out. You are going down the lines of segregation. Are you a proud segregationist? I hope not.

You might have opinions that being gay is a choice but that is contrary to reality and the mountains of evidence that contradict that and your six or seven biblical passages that you use to condemn gay people and their fight for equal rights. Just as much as creationism is not real, neither is those passages that are taken out of context to condemn gay people.

Building on the last point; having to see equal and superior couples as equal and superior to your own is not forcing you to accept a belief, it is urging you to accept reality and the facts for what they are. What is sad is that people like you said the same thing about integration back in the sixties and seventies. Theodore Roosevelt was right. "Those who dont know history are bound to repeat it."

Finally, allowing same sex couples to get married is not creating a law, nor should it. It is lifting discriminatory bans, stopping laws, and provisions on competent, eligible, and committed couples that are either secular or religious. You are welcome to spout inaccuracies and misconceptions in law, religion, ethics, and reality, however your opinions end when they try to force themselves onto the lives of others. If you continue on your crusade it will inevitably be your rights on the chopping block next. Do you seriously want that? When people are given their equal rights it only forces people like you to accept the fact that they are equal to you. If you cannot handle that then I pity the weak minded, bigoted person you are. It takes no effort to ingnore and accpet reality, but it takes a great amount of effort to fight agiasnt it.

What happens on this site is that you get e-mails informing you that threads have been added to the original story you had a comment in.  When it’s a hot subject you get bombarded with e-mails.  Mr. Marshall, have you seen my comments?  You seem to be taking a lot of time to respond to, bigots?, I’m not sure, I admit I glance at some of the responses; if I read your comments correctly you seem to have an immigration issue and strong civil union opinions.  Check me out, a token answer to my boycott question would be appreciated.  Be a wise guy like me,  one word answer is acceptable (you’re very busy) like yes they work, or sometimes, maybe  or never. www.steinforgovernor.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlIV2Tl4qM4&feature=related  there’s a music element to my “campaign”

Gary, I hope you are not calling me a bigot. You have got to be the most ignorant man alive to do that. I wish people here would stop throwing around so many names and harsh words. Repulsive! Grow up!

And Chris: you said, "not. Futher more stop lying about how gays want to redefine civil marriage when they only wish to preserve the time honored tradition of marriage being a legal and secular institution."

Lying is a strong word. You should look it up in the dictionary. I only say what I understand to be true. If it is not, then it was the person who made it up that lied. Not me. As I understand it, a civil union should be good for the purpose uniting two people. What is the problem?

That is sad you think that way, that is the same as people who murder then blame it on their divine inspirations. You know the facts, you know what science says, you cant be ignorant of the facts, so you are believing and perpetuating the lies.You are lying to yourself in order to deny the reality of the situation.

Reality can sound harsh my dear but that doesnt mean it should be silenced. You dont have to forgo your belief in a divine to see reality, that can be just a side effect of accepting it. If you want to know about more people who can put their faith with reality you should look into Francis Collins, Dr. Rev Mel White, and of course Dr. Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

King was an amazing equal rights supporter for gays, had he not been killed our fight for freedom from oppression for those of your ilk would be over many years ago.

Juniper, not at all, sorry, I used you as a foil in the “cause of immigration reform;” part of the world according to   http://steinforgovernor.com/Donations.html  That’s Stein for Governor.  We just finished downloading to the music player on that page.  Now I have to mischievously put in the address to the New York Times  and a facsimile of their phone #.  Long story, if you read the home page you’d understand.

As far as the threads, I've been on the sidelines warming the bench in this discussion and that suites me just fine, but one- on side kick was called for by the coach.  That’s the coach’s picture with the sombrero on, a.k.a. the Big Moose.   Any way I was just proving something to “myself.”  Ask me about it, or guess.   By the way did you click on this link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI

it was a peace offering in advance.

Well thats sad Gary, because she is a bigot. A bigot is a person who is interely intolerant of others. Well Juniper is vehemently against LGBT being treated like the equal citizens they are in both the legal and social spectrum of society. That makes her a bigot. Dont apologize for bigotry. That like apologizing to Holocaust deniers. Oh and BTW for those out there that deny that LGBT people were murdered just as much as jewish people in the Holocaust, that make you a Holocaust denier for LGBT people.

Chris Marshall you are a moron! I am nothing that you say that I am. You are a liar and a distorter of truth! I said nothing of not wanting LGBT to have equal rights. Here is what you said, "Well Juniper is vehemently against LGBT being treated like the equal citizens they are in both the legal and social spectrum of society. That makes her a bigot." Get your head out of your but!

Mike Nichols, I have never been to a church that preached to hate any people. God hates sin, but loves the sinner. All people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is love. Love is kind, love is gentle, love does not envy or boast, etc...

You can be opposed to an action and not the person doing the act. I had a gay friend and I have a lesbian friend. This would be a way better world if people would stop and consider others for a change.

Marriage is a part of equal rights sweet heart. Marriage equality is what equals equality not civil unions a second class status of segregation. If you support segregation and not marriage equality guess what? You ARE a bigot against LGBT people being seen as equal human beings.

Nothing lies more than religion. Granted you are entitled to your opinions, which are not facts or based on any scientifically or historically factual data, your opinions end when they stand in the way of social progress and full equal treatment of all citizens.

As for your previous post about what you think about gay people its strikingly obvious that you are a bigot against us. You do not want us to have marriage, because you dont know the difference between civil and religious marriage. And you only support rights that place us under you in social and legal acceptance. You my dear are the one who needs to get her head out of her butt or as the proper term would be, rectum.  :D

You call people ignorant and bias against you if they call you out for what and who you are. Girl you have serious reality perception problem. But dont worry there is medication and treatment for that. Oh and btw the only treatment for homosexuality is full acceptance of the fact that its a normal, positive variant of sexual orientation just like bisexuality and heterosexuality, and people who are LGBT in relationships should have the same freedoms and liberties as every heterosexual, that includes the right to marriage and adoption. (NASW, APA, AMA, AAA, and NAP.)

Have a nice day

Get over yourself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSTi3TyqFUA&feature=related  Everybody relax,  gay rights are going to do just fine.  I need help!  Tell them over at the immigration.org how effective boycotts are. Stick it to the Mexican government instead of the other way around.

"You can be opposed to an action and not the person doing the act. I had a gay friend and I have a lesbian friend. This would be a way better world if people would stop and consider others for a change."

Juniper sexual orientation is not an action it is what your beings is. The action/behavior is one in the same.

You then say contradictory things. You say you have never seen a church preach hate against anyone yet you say they preach hate against sin. Well you call the homosexual spectrum of sexual orientation a sin, and if god hates sin and your church preaches hate against that for which you call a sin, well then... they preach hate against gay people and gay families. Its just that simple.

I consider the fact that you are severely misguided in law, science, ethics, and critical thinking. I consider you have beliefs, however you beliefs are not there to infringe upon the rights of others. So I state what the facts say again. Homosexuality is a natural, normal, positive variant of sexual orientation. (AMA, APA, NASW, AAA, NAP) This is concluded through a mountain of evidence and half a century of rigorous study.

Now for my question to you as one oppressed human being to the privileged other.

How does my civil atheist marriage in any way impact your religious reborn again christian marriage? How does it? I would like to hear your explanation and I think everyone eles on this board would like to as well.

Factoid: in the paces and countries that have marriage equality marriages have increased and divorces decreased. So in reality gay marriage helped marriages.

What is sad is after you answer my little question of reason and logic, is how I am imaging you swallowing your pride ten years from now and either owning up to the fact that you were wrong about marriage equality, or like Jerry Falwell with segregation, it was gods divine plan to oppress us for a bit to make us stronger.

Peace.

Oh and Gary funny little radio show. Makes me glad to be gay and not striaght. As well as being with a person like Ruben who does the dishes with me, irons the clothes with me, and does everything with me. Its amazing when we were together how fast we could get things done... I guess the saying is true. Two is always better than one. 

Miss bartlett...This may surprise you but I agree with you that no one should be forced to perform a ceremony that they dont want to...

However, considering that not all christian clergy would have a problem with performing same sex marriages AND that there are other religiously ordained ministers besides the christian ones...

I really dont see this as a problem.

Also, I fail to understand why any same sex couple would want to be married by the pastor/minister of a church that they are neither members of and/or made to feel welcome in ? 

And please, before you bring up that incident with ocean grove...From what Ive read, the couple in that case just wanted to lease the property...Not be married by the clergy there.

Miss bartlett...Perhaps you could be kind enough to not refer to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" or a "sin" and furthermore if you would be so kind, please understand that seperate but equal will never be equal.

Thank you.

Go Thomas

Thanks chris.

No no, negativism is hate.

Pastors aren't forced to marry same-sex couples if they don't want to. You're ignorant on that issue, clearly. They don't have to marry any couple they don't want to.

Again...more ignorance...Homosexuality isn't a 'life style choice' as much as you can choose to be born with brown hair, brown eyes, or be 5'11". They are all caused by genetic traits. There is nothing short of electrick shock 'therapy' and torture that can change a person's seuxality. And even then, it is reprogrammed out of pure fear.

Thank you, but, try again another day.

Get over yourself!

It's obvious you're unwilling to debate my points which, quite obviously, you've held no defense against, and instead have resorted to personal attacks.

Please, spare yourself the embarassment and admit your ideas are incorrect.

Hey Juniper everytime you say get over yourself, I am going to say "Believe it!"

LOL I can do this all day. Your my daily entertainment sweet heart. Perhaps its you who needs to get over your one sided beliefs and look to the world as something more fluid and not so static.

Lifestyle choices ?

A law for everybody ?

Miss bartlett...Come on now.

Surely you cant be foolish enough to really believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle can you ?

Thats like calling heterosexuality a lifestyle...Thereby implying that it can be changed.

And I would really love to know how those of us who are supportive of equality are trying to make homosexuality a law for everyone...

Ok told immigration equality Good luck man I am behind you and keep up the good fight for immigration equality.

Hallelujah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AratTMGrHaQ&feature=related

Yep...Theyre effective IF you can get enough folks to participate and IF the boycott has an economical effect on those who are against you...So, yeah...I'd say they work.

Thomas I'll send you a friend request off the air while you listen to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RPCFfudmU&feature=related

I'm 99 point 99 per cent sure Chris wasn't "testing me" in some round about way he has when he asked me in a "friend request" and mentioned something I needed to do because of  "a restriction on the site."

I wish my profile page was overflowing with all of you.

You know some one over at the immigration blog (fully supportive of gay rights mind you) told me as a friend, to watch my p's and q's over here I might be off topic.  My response is this; not to say mind his own business, but to say lets stop pussy footing around- that's what politicians do save one- a Democrat- and a hero of mine, me a Republican, and that's BARNEY FRANK- CONGRESSMAN, MASSACHUSETS.

Gary did you read the friend request or just accpet it? I wrote my final message in there because unless someone accpets your friend request you can only send out five messages per day to people. I exceeded that limit.

I read it thoroughly, but just like you don't trust politicians, which I'm definitely not (although I aspire to be governor, or at very least king of my own castle- very difficult living with a woman)  I'm inordinately suspicious of any one I don't know more then one day.  That might be you, (if you're as mischievous as me, which I think you are).  

Do me a favor, say hello or something like that on the immigration blog http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/hate_crime_victim_julio_maldonado_wrongfully_convicted_now_being_deported

tell them outright i didn't want to add  another thread there without it being broken up by another person's comment.  I do that consecutive thread business too much, and i look crazy enough as it is.  Tell them that. Want to say something on behalf of the cousins who are being deported.

p.s. i wish every one on the gay side of this blog would load up my profile page with their pictures.

Does anybody (this is a rhetorical question) on this site remember Stonewall?  They don't get it over at the immigration blog!  You have to be in the establishments face to get anything done.  I'm being warned from the other blog not to get all of you too upset over here.  I'm warned over there not to call illegals, illegals.  I don't like the word either but I am for better or worse running for Governor.  You got to sound like you're in touch.......oh whatever?  You folks get it if they don't.  I only showed up here in the first place because you used the word boycott in the story above.  Chris Marshall gets it and so does Thoma McHugh.

Do me that favor wont you Chris?

Thanks Chris and Thomas. Done deal 8/24, two friends- two faces (put themselves on the line for me, and its so easy) on my profile page from folks on this side of the blog where I've hardly been, and bupkus on the immigration side.

I studied stone wall but now we got something new. The Rainbow Lodge. That is this day in ages stone wall. Thank you bigot cops of fort worth Texas for making sure we remember the kind of treatment you give to us. Unjust, cruel, brutal, shameful and dishonest.

Chris, was just going to comment on thread when I saw your request in my e-mail.  This is what I've been up to this morning: e-mailed entire fort worth city council and the cowardly police dept. Two assumptions are in order maybe 1) i read about the situation and where it stood in June. 2) and you and I can agree this was pretty much a rogue incident and that Stonewall- back in the day - revealed the typical police dept., not the exception. 

Anyway here's two hours worth of work this morning (including time with my computer that wouldn't load and watching more you tubes...(not the musical variety type like I enjoy.)

I think this is the message my computer got hung up on and I couldn’t send to the gay police officer on you tube, and then the article that contained all the e-mail addresses….…I was complimenting gays fighting spirit on the change.org  blog and mentioned Stonewall and a gay man, responding to my comment, mentioned Fort Worth.  Saw the other video and this.  You did an excellent job in front of the camera in 2nd video explaining your personality quirks (an asset).  Check out my web site Stein for Governor, we have a lot in common.  Going to e-mail the Fort Worth and mention how “bad press gets around.”

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/30/fort-worth-police-chief-that-faggot-had-it-coming

and here's the you tube I think my comment did get added to.  Who the hell knows?  can’t keep track and head starts to spin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PScswWSOas0&NR=1

and here’s message I e-mailed to neanderthals in Fort Worth:  Do the right thing!  are you guys kidding in this day and age; this is why people are disgusted with civil servant high jinks and things (misdeeds) being swept under the rugs.

I’m one little man but I hope you got hundreds of e-mails from small folk like me trying to put bureaucrats like you on notice.  For your perusal (and maybe amusement?), my web site is http://www.steinforgovernor.com/Come_Fly_With__Me.html

They do, it is called a civil union.

Which offers vastly inferior rights when compared to marriage.

Therefore, they don't have the same rights, entering into their separate and inequal binding.

Juniper I wont call you a moron like you did me, but please stop ignoring all the work I post on here for you to digest and educate yourself with. I explained in great detail what civil unions are. Even if the confer all the same rights to marriage its still segregation (also legalized discrimination) and segregation, I hope you know, is wrong and it causes more harm that anything.

Thank you! finally someone who understands the legal understanding of marriage in the United States.

Couldn't agree with you more....marriage is a legal contract, plain and simple, at least in the eyes of the government.

And I just love the point that someone made up above about how the same people moaning about a national health care system would like to see the government involved in their bedrooms and their marriages.  So true....

Rational ?

Who said I was rational ?

:P :P :P

Dude... Ending DOMA "GETS" federal government out of our lives.

Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't make government take hold on our lives, it allows couples to take hold of governmental rights and social statuses to be treated as equal and secure their future.

Doing away with the 1138 federal rights to marriage not to mention the 200-1000 state rights does nothing but harm people. Just because this path seems difficult because of a bigots try to block the way, ending the rights of all to appease the select and bigoted few is idiocy at its finest.

I cant fathom why people like you held this view, that of ending all rights for the few road blocks, back when African Americans wanted to have federal recognition of their marriages, then again in the fortys and fifties. It is not the simplest nor is it the smartest solution. The Occam's razor to this problem is, give all people the right to civilly marry the consenting adult they chose.

If we allow pedophiles, felons, zoophiliacs, lunatics, and morally depraved religious zealots to marry and receive the 1138 rights to marriage, what is the harm of allowing homosexual couples, who are well documented to be far more stable and committed than heterosexual couples, to marry?

Simple solution known to work: Give equal people their equal rights.

improbable and poor solution that fails: strip all couples of their marriage rights because one doesn't know the legal definition and standing of civil marriage vs religious marriage.

Mr. jones...I understand what your saying BUT it aint the goverment thats doing the discriminating...Its the christian church imposing their "morality" on everyone through the secular goverment thereby not only violating the first amendment but also being immoral.

Well said my friend and beautifully so...

Yep...Your absolutely right sir.

Actually, two heterosexual couples that I know have decided to postpone their weddings after I made them aware of this campaign. One was scheduled to get married in March 2010, the other couple was going to marry in May 2010.

To say that anyone would divorce, would be a lot of us to ask. But those who are on "our side" should be at the least made aware of this campaign.

good, you walk the walk- you're out there promoting in addition to blogging. 

(and does this comment get deleted or does it stay because somebody contacted the site admin. on my behalf?)

That's funny!  I'm still here and still wondering if any one saw my thread where I mentioned I sent e-mails to the Fort Worth city council, the mayor and the police department concerning the police brutality at the gay bar last June.  And I added a complimentary comment on a gay police officers you tube.  I mentioned that too.

Mr. McHugh is exempt from my scolding, he answered my question about the effectiveness of boycotts (for the benefit of the immigration side of this blog)

I also begged for more friend requests from this side of the blog. Not the least of which because  I'm being threatened with a banning from the blog, can you believe it?

Mr. stein...

Why were you being threatened with a ban ?

Thomas, that was a long time ago.  Back then I got word through 2 private messages sent by one- i think was the host of the immigration blog- dave bennion; and the other was ana lisa.  They said that people over on this side didn't appreciate me, coming over, and being off topic.  if you remember, all i was asking was for someone who knew the history of "gay right" to confirm what i'd been saying on immigration blog, that is ....."boycotts" are effective.

Funny, but you were the only person to take me up on it.  thanks. check this out, get my hits up.

http://www.steinforcongress2010.com/Town_Hall_News.html