Repeal the DOMA

posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/19/2009 @ 9:15pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (67)

Subscribe Now

This post was written by Nation intern and freelance writer Alana Levinson.

For more than a decade, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton, has denied married same-sex couples certain federal rights.

Under DOMA, these couples, even if legally married in their state, are denied social security survivors' benefits, medical leave to care for a sick spouse, and equal treatment under immigration law. DOMA also prevents states from recognizing same-sex marriages that were enacted in other states, making it difficult for couples to move from state to state.

On September 15th, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), introduced H.R.3567, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009, which would repeal DOMA in its entirety. Lawfully married same-sex couples would now be protected under federal law and would be entitled to the more than 1,000 federal benefits that marriage confers on heterosexual couples.

While the law would still leave marriage recognition up to each individual state this bill, at its core, is a step towards equality for the LGBT community. As Baldwin said in a press conference detailing the proposal: "The legislation we're introducing today will legally extend to legally married same-sex couples the same federal rights and recognitions now offered to heterosexual couples -- nothing more, nothing less."

The proposed legislation has the support of 101 Congressional co-sponsors, more than 50 human rights organizations and the endorsement of other prominent officials including, interestingly, President Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, former Representative Bob Barr (R-GA), who authored DOMA, and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.. Please join them and urge your representative to sponsor and support the bill.

Comments (67)

Surest way to get a republican controlled congress in 2010 and a republican Pres. in 2012, so go for it!!!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 10:21pm
civil government should sanction civil unions. churches should sanction marriage.

civil government should sanction NO marriage at all.

problem solved!!!!!!

Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:36pm
civil government should sanction civil unions. churches should sanction marriage. civil government should sanction NO marriage at all. problem solved!!!!!! Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--problem not even remotely solved. if gov't would sanction no marriages at all--and all that was available was civil unions, the same people who are against gay marriage would be against gay civil unions.

Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:43am
meanwhile,

back at goldman sachs...

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 12:49am
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 10:21pm |

Sorry, guess again; you nimrods punched that fear-button until it broke.

No more Karl Rove channeling Dr. Skinner for you.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/20/2009 @ 07:45am
BIG -- I don't buy your political analysis but even if you were right I believe extending equal rights to all American citizens is more important than working to elect either political party.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/20/2009 @ 08:02am
bubba Clinton is looking worse and worse.

that's why they were so afraid of Obama,

the contrast is startling.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/20/2009 @ 10:21am
put down that pipe, jr!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 11:53am
better yet,

read this:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/wall- street-drops-dem-donations.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 11:53am
I don't believe in civil unions. Marriage for everyone! Seperate never has been and never will be equal.

Modern and historical marriage is not about religion, no matter how Anti will spin it if you go back far enough and look at enough cultures it is not based in religion more on economics and politics. I believe that if only the religous can get 'married' that it will furhter divide the country and only stigmatize those who are only 'civily united'

Allowing same sex marriages has absolutely NO effect on anyone other than the couple and those close to them. I don't care if some religous folks find it offensive, I am personally offended when people try to force their religion on me. But I get over it, and those against gay marriage, should to.

Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 12:00pm
"Surest way to get a republican controlled congress in 2010 and a republican Pres. in 2012, so go for it!!!"

look, everyone! bigpasture tacitly approved gay marriage!!!!!!

bigpasture is faggot-friendly now, or he was closeted all along!

Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
hey bigpasture,

do you think homosexuality is a biological fact?

Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 12:34pm
civil government should sanction NO marriage at all.

problem solved!!!!!!

Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:36pm

So...how do we go about changing the thousands of federal laws that have the word "marriage" in them, eh? Just use our magic wand and change them all to "civil unions?"

Do you know how impossible that is?

The problem is the religious right in this country believes (wrongly) that the word "marriage" is a religious word. In the United States, "marriage" is a civil union and the word "marriage" (like it or not) has a civil definition. Marriage in America means that two people have joined into a union, by which they receive many rights and privileges. The ONLY way to achieve equality is to make "marriage" legal for everybody.

Our government does not sanction church and state, except to the point where the church does not interfere with the state, since we do not have and will never have a state religion. Therefore, since marriage is already a civil institution, governed by the laws of man, not god, then it should be made available to all citizens, regardless of religious belief or sexual orientation.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 12:54pm
Extraneous is right, marriage has little to do with religion and everything to do with the state. If you get married--anywhere--you don't have to have any religious involvement at all. But you DO need a certificate from the state authorizing you to do so.

If it was entirely private, and had nothing else attached to it, I'd agree. Who cares? But it isn't private, it's public. Very public. It's the explicit denial of a whole host of civil rights to a marginalized group of people. Darladoon, I see your point--this is a political issue, and if there is a genetic connection (& I think there must be), this can only help the gay community in their battle for rights that the rest of us take for granted. But in reality, it shouldn't matter. As long as the parties concerned are consenting adults, you should be able to choose who you love.

Repeal DOMA. Stand by fellow American citizens in their fight to get the legal recognition we all enjoy!

Posted by naranjera at 10/20/2009 @ 12:55pm
Marriage is for hetrosexuals. There may someday be a law recognizing a flat earth, but that law would never flatten the planet. Someday it may be that there are 50 state laws recognizing homosexual "marriage", but those laws would never flatten Marriage into something other than Marriage is for hetrosexuals. "You can call it a bananna, if you want" but homosexual marriage will never be a Marriage.

Posted by tucanofulano at 10/20/2009 @ 2:05pm
marriage is just a word -- a collection of sounds.

let's call it oonganoonga.

stupid humans.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 2:14pm
How the DOMA separate-but-equal religulous dogmata is constitutional in the first place, is a head scratcher, but to not do anything about it after the great enlightenment of 2008, would be like so baroque. Even some loco rococo type new con repubs have experimented with cracking the door open on unsegregated marriage!

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 2:49pm
Frosty - I agree with you with the caveat that "marriage" is a legal term, recognized by our courts and the laws of the land. Calling it something else for personal reasons is all fine and dandy, except that calling it something else does not change the discriminatory laws, nor does it change the second class status that gays and lesbians (and others) currently face in our country.

Yes ultimately, the battle is about a word. I agree with that. But it's obviously a powerful word, or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to define it as something it is not. It is also a word with a recognized legal and civil meaning and nothing the religious nutjobs can say about it makes that any different under our laws. Unless we are to allow them to win and tacitly acknowledge that "marriage" is a word with religious connotations in our laws, then they (the religious nutjobs) have already won and the barrier between church and state has been broken.

And believe me, once that barrier is down, they'll all come in like the Flood and that barrier will never be rebuilt. Sooner or later, they will force us to become a religious nation, whether we want it or not.

I think that is a fight worth fighting. I may not be able to control the Goldman Sachs and the Exxons of the world, but I sure as hell can control what I believe to be right and just under the Constitution.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 2:52pm
"Marriage is for heterosexuals"

so that means that a man, who becomes a woman, and a woman, who becomes a man, could technically get married.

Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 2:54pm
a couple of years ago i played a wedding for an ex-man and a continuing to be woman.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:11pm
I think that is a fight worth fighting. I may not be able to control the Goldman Sachs and the Exxons of the world, but I sure as hell can control what I believe to be right and just under the Constitution.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 2:52pm

you can control what you believe, but beyond that.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:18pm
The left is relentless in attempting to redefine both history and even words themselves. No matter how many times you keep telling your lies, you cannot change either history or the etymology of the word marriage.

The early colonists were nearly all Christian and have their marriage roots established for them in the scriptures. That dates marriage back to the beginning of mankind. As Jesus stated, marriage was defined by G-d as between a man and a woman. And the desire of the man was to be towards the woman (Genesis 3:16), not other men. We get our word marriage from the Bible. It is not a secular word in it's origins. It is used as far back as over 4000 years ago in the Bible.

'iysh

a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female) b) husband

'ishshah

a)woman, wife, female, b) woman (opposite of man)

With the attempt of those who deny G-d and His word, I have followed in the steps of other pastors and counsel couples to not to take out civil licenses if they truly want a marriage that is holy unto G-d. Christians will have to stop participating and joining themselves with the goal of the atheists to bring their sins into supposed acceptance with things that are holy like marriage.

Christians in this country must come to a decision to honor Christ and sanctify themselves (set apart) from the world by His truth. (John 17:16-19)

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm
The early colonists were nearly all Christian and have their marriage roots established for them in the scriptures. That dates marriage back to the beginning of mankind. ...We get our word marriage from the Bible... Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm

1. Actually there were a lot non-christian marriages before and after the colonists arrived in the Americas.

2. The bible is relatively very new in comparison to the various humanity pairing up for millions and millions of years.

3. The word marriage did not 'come' from the bible. That's like saying language came from the bible. The bible usage of various language and translations thereof logically concedes that language preceded it. No language before writing the bible-- no bible.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 3:55pm
1. Actually there were a lot non-christian marriages before and after the colonists arrived in the Americas.

2. The bible is relatively very new in comparison to the various humanity pairing up for millions and millions of years.

3. The word marriage did not 'come' from the bible. That's like saying language came from the bible. The bible usage of various language and translations thereof logically concedes that language preceded it. No language before writing the bible-- no bible.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 3:55pm

thanks for proving my point about atheists trying to reinvent history.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 4:02pm
President Clinton, after more than a decade, and with no more elections to contest, has changed his position on DOMA.

How long will it take President Obama to change his position? Will he have the same courage as Bob Barr to change his mind before he leaves office (I assume from the article above that Mr. Barr is still in office)?

Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 4:13pm
Modern and historical marriage is not about religion, no matter how Anti will spin it if you go back far enough and look at enough cultures it is not based in religion more on economics and politics.

Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 12:00pm

This assumes that religion is not about economics and politics, but historically they have always been close: Alexander the Great as king was the only one who could perform certain religious rites, the pharqohs called themselves gods, the monasteries of the Middle Ages were powerful landowners, "Paris is worth a mass," Muhammad launched an epic political and military conquest, usury laws were based on scripture,...

Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 4:25pm
Nope Mistral, Barr is no longer in office.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:59pm
you can control what you believe, but beyond that.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:18pm

...and the rest I fight for.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:06pm
"Surest way to get a republican controlled congress in 2010 and a republican Pres. in 2012, so go for it!!!"

look, everyone! bigpasture tacitly approved gay marriage!!!!!!

bigpasture is faggot-friendly now, or he was closeted all along!

Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.hey bigpasture,

do you think homosexuality is a biological fact?

Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

-----------------------------

"deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."

"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."

Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?

Darla LOON believes the deaths of homosexuals is more tragic than the deaths of herosexuals also!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/20/2009 @ 5:15pm
With the attempt of those who deny G-d and His word, I have followed in the steps of other pastors and counsel couples to not to take out civil licenses if they truly want a marriage that is holy unto G-d. Christians will have to stop participating and joining themselves with the goal of the atheists to bring their sins into supposed acceptance with things that are holy like marriage.

Christians in this country must come to a decision to honor Christ and sanctify themselves (set apart) from the world by His truth. (John 17:16-19)

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm

Larry, I totally agree with you that Christians should no longer take out a civil license to be married under the eyes of god.

However, they will also no longer receive the governmental benefits of being a married American, will they? No tax credits for kids, no tax credits for being married, no death benefits after a spouse dies; no hospital rights for spouses, every will goes immediately into probate...yes, Christians like you should divorce yourselves from our society. The rest of us will be much happier when you're gone. Buh-bye!

We do not live in a Christian nation, although many of our founding principles are of Christian origin. I hold that as a strength of our system, you hold it as a weakness.

This nation was founded on the basis of a freedom of religion. Removing religious marriage and making it all civil marriage would be a good thing. Then YOU can be the ones who say, "I'm married even though the government doesn't recognize it" instead of all the gays and lesbians (and others) who are saying it now. Then perhaps you'll know what it feels like to be outcast.

My Jesus is loving and forgiving; yours seems kinda petty and mean-spirited. I prefer mine, as you prefer yours.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:20pm
How long will it take President Obama to change his position? Will he have the same courage as Bob Barr to change his mind before he leaves office (I assume from the article above that Mr. Barr is still in office)?

Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 4:13pm

Obama already DOES support repeal of DOMA. He just isn't for gay marriage.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:26pm
thanks for proving my point about atheists trying to reinvent history. Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 4:02pm

Anti-knowledge, I'm not an atheist, but unlike you-- just believe in science too.

1. Marriage in Americas before colonists: Native American Wedding Vows- The rich and diverse cultures of the Native American tribes encompass many varied wedding customs, traditions and ceremonies. The Manataka American Indian Council is aware of more than 5,000 different ceremonies that were shared among the different Native American tribes.

http://tinyurl.com/yjynq2g

Read up: Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America By Will Roscoe

2. In the Bibles own words: ...the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!

http://tinyurl.com/2d6kt5

3. How old is language? Although this question is still being debated, most linguists assume that the full language capacity had evolved by 100,000 BC. This is when modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) evolved in Africa with a modern skull shape (indicating modern brain function) and a modern vocal tract which would allow these people to articulate all the sounds found in modern languages. Some anthropologists speculate that language or parts of the language ability may have developed earlier, but there is no firm consensus yet.

http://tinyurl.com/yglwet7

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 5:49pm
My Jesus is loving and forgiving; yours seems kinda petty and mean-spirited. I prefer mine, as you prefer yours.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:20pm

No, it's just that you seem to have no concept of who Jesus is and what He requires of us.

The Jesus I love and serve certainly is loving and forgiving-to those who repent of sin and follow after Him living holy and righteous lives.

Jesus never condoned sin. As G-d, He cannot. You seem to believe in what Paul aptly described as "another Jesus and another gospel" in 2 Corinthians 11:3,4

<But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!>

What is one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit?

John 16:8 <And when He is come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:>

The message of Jesus was to seek restoration with G-d and to live according to the righteousness of G-d, not man.

Matthew 6:33 "But seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

the vision of the future of the church as the bride of Christ as shown in Revelation 19:8

<"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.">

G-d the father through His son, Jesus is loving and forgiving; but this is shown to those who turn from what is right in the world to what is right before G-d.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 5:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 5:57pm

If you quote scripture at me again, please do it in the original language...and only THEN tell me what the words of the prophets are and what you think they mean.

Otherwise, don't waste my time, or yours.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 6:18pm
If you quote scripture at me again, please do it in the original language...and only THEN tell me what the words of the prophets are and what you think they mean.

Otherwise, don't waste my time, or yours.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 6:18pm

In other words, you have no capacity for rebuttal.

I could post them in Greek or Hebrew, but what good would that do you? Do you read either language? do you have seminary training in hermeneutics?

Or perhaps, just a simple question.

Which verse from that post <Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 5:57pm> do you find to be either out of context, mistranslated, or not applicable to Christians today?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 6:28pm

No, you missed my point completely. My point was that the Bible as we now know it, is a document written by mankind, translated by mankind, and interpreted by mankind. You, with all your beliefs, have built your entire belief system on what other people have told you to believe. They have TOLD you it is the word of god, but how do you truly know? Had you been born in a different part of the world, chances are good your entire belief system would be different.

Regarding religion, you have lost the one true gift that god gave us; the ability to reason and see beyond what others tell us to decide for yourself if a thing is true or not.

Faith is a belief that cannot be proven through empirical evidence, which is exactly what makes it so special.

Faith is also very different from religion; faith is a thing of god, religion is mankind's feeble attempt to understand what god desires. Ironically, I actually say the exact same thing about science; it is mankind's feeble attempt to understand god.

Do you actually think you are wise enough to KNOW, beyond a doubt, what god wants for you, or me, or President Obama, or some poor bombed out villager in Iraq? Or do you rather, as most humans do, pretend to know what god wants, and pass it along as "fact?" (Those who can't do, preach.)

We all muddle through life, but until we use that ultimate gift that god, through evolution, has blessed on us, our capability to reason, we are all just sheep in a field of wolves...and I refuse to be either.

I prefer to use the brain god gave me and not listen to the dictates of others, even those who call themselves "Christians" and yet seem to know nothing of true sacrifice of the Christ.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 6:47pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 6:47pm

You just gave me the typical response of those who believe they are all the "god" they need. You define good, you define holy, you reject submission to G-d.

G-d's will and purpose for us is not a mystery. If that were so, G-d would be a mean and cruel G-d.

You attempt to link me with the very thing I teach and live against, which is religion. I found that funny actually.

with this latest response, I am more convinced that I had made a correct choice in linking you with Paul's warning about those who follow a different Jesus and a different gospel.

one last note; Its seems this different Jesus you wish to follow would not like the Jesus who replied to Satan in Matthew 4:4:

<But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'>

It is not from men that I get my understanding of scripture:

<However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.> John 16:13,14

restated by Paul

"These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Cor 2:13,14

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 7:27pm
Marriage is for hetrosexuals. There may someday be a law recognizing a flat earth, but that law would never flatten the planet. Someday it may be that there are 50 state laws recognizing homosexual "marriage", but those laws would never flatten Marriage into something other than Marriage is for hetrosexuals. "You can call it a bananna, if you want" but homosexual marriage will never be a Marriage.

Posted by tucanofulano at 10/20/2009 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

oooohhhhh...another from the "marriage is sacred" crowd.

yeah, heterosexuals are doing a great job. 50% divorce rate for 1st marriages. so "sacred"

Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 8:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--what's religion got to do with marriage (as far as the state goes)?

Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 8:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--what's religion got to do with marriage (as far as the state goes)?

Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 8:24pm

My argument has consistently been the use of the word marriage.

I have repeatedly stated that states have the right to license whatever form of civil contract people wish to engage in.

I might not personally approve of some of those types of relationships, but I would not be exercising the same level of protest. Change everyone's license to civil union and many conservatives like myself would not make a legal fight.

I would restrict myself to moral commentary which my position as a pastor obligates me to. We had a rich tradition of pastors and priests being moral watchmen on the nation throughout most of our history (and the history of Christianity and Judaism). The respect for that moral guardianship has diminished. Partly due to corruption within Christianity; and partly with the changing morals of the nation.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 9:35pm
The word "Marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier ("‘to marry'"), from Latin maritare ("‘to marry", literally "give in marriage'"), from maritus ("‘lover", "nuptial'"), from mas ("‘male", "masculine", "of the male sex'").[14]

According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."[15]

Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures.[16][17] Edvard Westermarck defined marriage in the 1922 edition of The History of Human Marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized as custom or law and involves certain rights and duties" to the individuals who enter into it, and any children born from it.[18] Such definitions failed to recognize same-sex marriages that have been documented around the world, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.[17][19][20]

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 11:32pm
In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo. In the last ten years, in the English-speaking world, all major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions.[21][22] The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.[23]

Some proponents of same-sex marriages use the term marriage equality to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.[24] Some opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions[25], and some use the term "traditional marriage" to mean marriages between one man and one woman.[26]

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state.[27] Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project[28], claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage.[29]

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 11:39pm
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[33] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[34]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[35] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[36]

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[37] These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[38] Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius.[39] Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages.[40] By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special."[41].

These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 11:40pm
These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 11:40pm

Gee, that must mean that they recognized that Christianity prohibits homosexual marriage

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 11:52pm
Gee, that must mean that they recognized that Christianity prohibits homosexual marriage Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 11:52pm

Gee, you might recognize your anti-christ church had been killing people for a long long bigoted time, but then you're way ok with the anti-christ killing and such for some reason...

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/21/2009 @ 12:02am
Gee, that must mean that they recognized that Christianity prohibits homosexual marriage Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 11:52pm

Gee, you might recognize your anti-christ church had been killing people for a long long bigoted time, but then you're way ok with the anti-christ killing and such for some reason...

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/21/2009 @ 12:02am

Nonsense, there is no commandment for christians to kill homosexuals. I simply noted that you had provided evidence that homosexuality has been condemned going all the way back in Christianity.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:46am
Nonsense, there is no commandment for christians to kill homosexuals. I simply noted that you had provided evidence that homosexuality has been condemned going all the way back in Christianity. Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:46am

Nonsense, I simply proved that your anti-christ church were bigots from the very beginning using the JC message of love-- in order to spread hate and intolerance.

There were lots of cultures before your anti-christianity that offered more love and tolerance than yours; and which yours has tried to destroyed just as yours did with our native american population.

But lo I say unto you that your anti-christians will be cast down asunder to meet your anti-g-d and be anti-dust and all things anti. For it is written that mankind EVOLVES!!! (eventually)

Say a Hebrew הללויה and an Egyptian Amen or cross your chest for Nibiru... Whether it's borrowed, stolen or made up, a religion is only as good as what you do with it. Hate and intolerance is simply hate and intolerance no matter how you try to hide it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/21/2009 @ 07:45am
Glad to see my Congressman as co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act (he's gay -so no surprise there).

It's startling how much of this thread is spent trying to educate anti-socialist. It's hopeless, folks.

On to Goldman Sachs.

Posted by cdlepthien at 10/21/2009 @ 07:45am
Gee, that must mean that they recognized that Christianity prohibits homosexual marriage

Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 11:52pm

It means that the Roman church (you know, the Catholics) prohibits gay marriage. Jesus never said a word about it.

BTW, in case you didn't know your history, the Roman Empire was simply swallowed by the church (which became the ("Holy Roman Empire"), along with many of its pagan rites and rituals. Would you agree that makes those pagan rites and rituals "Christian?" I wouldn't. They are still pagan rites, simply covered with the respectability of Christianity.

Much like Christmas. The celebration of the birth of the Christ includes the adoration of trees (a pagan rite) and is essentially the pagan celebration of midwinter (Saturnalia). I am sure you know that these rites were adopted by the Christian Church simply to pacify the natives as the church expanded.

This goes to prove my point that not everything that is "Christian" is of god, but of man.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 11:47am
Nope Mistral, Barr is no longer in office.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:59pm

Obama already DOES support repeal of DOMA. He just isn't for gay marriage.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:26pm

So there's really nothing here: people wait until they no longer hold a voting position and then say they've changed their minds. And as for the President, it's a distinction without a difference, like saying you have principles, but refuse to force them on anybody, including yourself.

Posted by Mistral at 10/21/2009 @ 11:48am
You just gave me the typical response of those who believe they are all the "god" they need. You define good, you define holy, you reject submission to G-d. Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 7:27pm

Larry,

I do not believe I am god. I define good as the deeds that we do, not by how well or how often we worship a book.

I do not define holy. I believe that holiness is attained when others think one is holy.

I do not reject submission to god. I reject submission to human beings like you who believe in only one thing.

I believe in all things, because my god is all things. He is straight; he is a she, he is homosexual and transgendered; she is white, black and every other color on the face of the planet; he is crippled and perfect; he believes that all men are equal in her eyes; he is beauty; she is grace; he is love and anger and hatred; she is wisdom and love and peace.

I do NOT believe he is an old white guy with a beard sitting on a throne behind gates made of pearl. I do not believe that Peter stands there judging us all before he decides to let us in or not.

I do not believe in hell (except hell on earth). I believe that Jesus' teachings should be followed by every human being. But I reject formal religion; because formal religion believes in religious wars, crusades, holy wars and jihads.

So ultimately, I reject you and your hypocritical view of both Christianity and Jesus. I am sure this all means nothing to you, which shows truly how "Christian" you are.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:02pm

I don't believe in Peter controlling access to heaven or G-d as an old white man with a beard either;

You cannot believe in the teachings of Jesus if you reject the notion of hell. Jesus taught more on judgment than He did on love (do a word search of the Gospels). Not because He preferred judgment over love. Because He loves, He warns man of their judgment if they do not repent and receive Him as Lord.

Frankly, it's not me who rejects your view of Christ and His word; It is Christ Himself.

John 14:21-24

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"

Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."

John 15:5-10

""I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. Love and Joy Perfected

"As the Father loved Me,I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love"

Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:41pm
The devil can quote scripture, and here's proof.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/21/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:02pm

Stephen I read Liberty's response to your interesting but rather gross challenge to orthodox Christianity. That really is the issue, not only with you but with others here. Liberty is mostly laying out what the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world, in the main, believe. I'm assuming you and other Liberty critics have at least read the gospels.

Why not be up front and say you are offended by parts of the teaching of Jesus Christ. If you have read the teaching of Jesus then your statement: "I believe that Jesus' teachings should be followed by every human being", is disingenuous in the context of some of the gibberish to which you've put your name.

As far as the use of the word marriage is concerned one does not need to have any religious view at all to see it is illogical if not irrational to use a term that embraces amongst other things providing a stable environment for the making of a family which is only naturally, biologically possible in the context of a heterosexual coupling.

My suggestion is that that sort of marriage in all its dimensions is impossible for same sex couples. That is not a religious view but one based on the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from all the dimensions of the meaning of the word.

The desire for same sex "marriage" recognition, I would suggest then, is no more than a proxy for (an impossible) equality with heterosexual coupling

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/22/2009 @ 07:01am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/22/2009 @ 07:01am

Like 'when' do live in your mind-- the dark ages?

Science and law have caught up with the realities of the 21st century, but you have not.

Intro vitro fertilization, adoption, marrying a partner with kids already,... etc all exist now.

Marriage limited to only heterosexual couples is simply not constitutional-- just as much as 'separate but equal' ever was.

The bible is not our law-- our US Constitution is what should be all our guide post against this type of discrimination and bigotry.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 4:51pm
Marriage limited to only heterosexual couples is simply not constitutional-- just as much as 'separate but equal' ever was.

The bible is not our law-- our US Constitution is what should be all our guide post against this type of discrimination and bigotry.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 4:51pm

There is no "right to marriage" in the constitution.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 7:22pm
Have you so called Christian types forgotten or just never knew that the first colonists to the "new world" were fleeing vigorous religious persecution from the British established church, which partially explains why they wrote the separation of church and state into the constitution, in case you didn't know. They also wanted to give some credit andrespect for their Christian roots so little inclusions like "In God We Trust" on the coins, etc. were allowed to seep in to the national collective consciousness, in spite of the institutionalized separation of church and state.

Posted by symboybot at 10/23/2009 @ 02:46am
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 4:51pm

Fools, Liberty has nailed your ignorance about your own constitution.

My guess is that such a folly was never entertained by the framers of your constitution who it seems saw no need to codify what from time immemorial had been the norm of marriage. Particularly so in late 18 C American society where homosexuality as a societal issue was not a topic for discussion or of controversy, as it is in contemporary Western society.

What is not in contention here is a restriction on any sort of homosexual relationship but simply the false use of the term marriage to describe a relationship that falls far short of the content and scope of marriage between complementary (i.e. heterosexual) persons.

Incidentally in our Constitution, a little more contemporary than yours, marriage has been defined in the following way in the Marriage Act 1961 Part 1 Sect 5. "... "marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

You can't be serious about suggesting modern science as a solution to the otherwise impossible. Men with scientifically created wombs? Come off it. That's neither man nor woman but a Frankenstein freak.

Homosexuals are a pretty rare species, probably constituting between 2% to 5% of the population. So there is the rarity of men who are fathers of children, having both their legal guardianship and being a homosexual who wants to get "married" (same for women).

However let us suppose that a man with children at his disposal forms a sexual relationship and lives with a man. Whatever that relationship may be called it no more fulfils an important part of the definition of marriage than a coupling of men (or women) who have no children does.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/23/2009 @ 06:03am
"In God We Trust" on the coins, etc. were allowed to seep in to the national collective consciousness, in spite of the institutionalized separation of church and state.

Posted by symboybot at 10/23/2009 @ 02:46am

Pity you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The separation of church and state is essentially a Christian doctrine enunciated by Jesus in the words: "give to Caesar (the state) what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

James Madison, whose writings you no doubt are familiar with, said:

"At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms". According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state. [22] wiki

In other words Madison is saying that when the reformers went back to the bible to find out what Jesus taught, they discovered the intellectual tools to more fully develop the doctrine of the separation of church and state.

So that's the debt you and every other American, who enjoys the liberty of conscience, that the separation of church and state gives in your country, owes to biblical Christianity.

Remember the Puritans Left England to gain religious freedom not freedom from religion, but rather from religious oppression by a state church. It's a world of difference.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/23/2009 @ 07:06am
There is no "right to marriage" in the constitution. Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 7:22pm

Fools, Liberty has nailed your ignorance about your own constitution. Posted by lrjones4 at 10/23/2009 @ 06:03am

Then you two blithering idiots don't know shit about constitutional law. Our US Constitution is application not just a piece of paper for new con repubs to wipe their asses for brains with.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "(n)o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Making a law against same sex marriage unconstitutional. i.e. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne. While the courts have applied rational-basis scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case intermediate scrutiny could apply to gay rights cases.[26]

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 08:21am
Marriage 3/4's separated in name only: Civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships, or unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation legal status offer varying portions of the legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. They are also available in parts of Argentina (Villa Carlos Paz, Río Cuarto, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Río Negro), Mexico (Coahuila and the Federal District), and the United States (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington, and the federal District of Columbia).

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 08:24am
And here we go:

Hate Crimes Bill Approved By Congress, Extends Protection To Gays

Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law Congress approved Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/yfz4om4

I can see where this is going.

So one can say that 'marriage' in itself, is more an act and not merely a form of free speech...!

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 08:52am
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 08:21am

Your case reference is to buggery. The discussion here is about same sex relationships and heterosexual marriage.

(However it seems that buggery was also illegal for heterosexual partners in Texas until Lawrence, so there was no discrimination, in law, between homo and hetero buggery. "Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex." wiki)

The point in contention is not buggery but whether same sex relationships can equally be called marriage.

In your next post you list the countries where homosexual couples have certain legal rights that married couples (including de facto) enjoy because of their "married" status. That is unremarkable but is really quite a separate issue from marriage. In Australia, our PM, who is considered progressive and centre left philosophically takes the following position re marriage V civil unions:

Rudd Firm on Gay Marriage Stance

Wed Jul 29, 2009

No change ... Kevin Rudd says Labor's position on gay marriage stays.

The Labor Party's Tasmanian state conference has called for the Federal Government to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Mr Rudd says he will not change the policy he took to the last election.

"We went to the last election being very clear-cut about our position on marriage under the Marriage Act being between a man and a woman," he said.

"We've also said that in terms of all legal discriminations against same-sex partners that we would act to remove them, and the Attorney-General has been hard at work."

Why? Marriage describes a hetero union only.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/23/2009 @ 09:27am
The point in contention is not buggery but whether same sex relationships can equally be called marriage. Posted by lrjones4 at 10/23/2009 @ 09:27am

One contention cannot exist analogous to its opposite-- the whole reason "separate but equal" was rule unconstitutional. And why sexual preference is now included as a hate crime.

That bigoted ideas as yours still persist does not negate where the law is heading. And not so surprising that you, like most new con repubs, can't or won't see it for what it is-- unconstitutional practice: bigotry pure and simple.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 11:47am
LRJones

Great posts and support. The fact that people like Fools want to become as G-d and recreate both nature and dictate to people of faith is simple more evidence that this is not about equality.

Nor can Fools defend the indefensible. There is no right to marriage in our constitution. Not for heterosexuals or anyone else.

And here is the case law never cited that upholds state bans on same sex marriage

<Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:26pm

Things change in time anti-humanity.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 4:48pm
<Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate in the decision), with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.

After the high court ruled, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) that had brought the suit and that had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, replied, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[1]>

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/24/2009 @ 09:51am