Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was was not about redefining marriage, it was about getting all the states to follow the 14th amendment.
Gay marriage also falls under the 14th amendment. We are also US citizens, we deserve the same rights, the same privelages and the same benefits. We deserve full equal representation of the Federal Government, not a separate set of rules and rights for gay people.
Are homosexuals not persons, or American citizens?
Homosexuals are being denied equal protection of the laws by the states, AND the federal government.
The 14th was not about gays.
Wealthy black people cannot claim welfare, but poor white people can???? Wow, there goes equal protection right out the window too, huh?
The point is, two white men cannot marry in most states, and neither can two black men, or two brown women, there you go, equal protection in action.
...as a reaction to the gay community trying to redefine marriage.
The problem was we never thought we had to actually define marriage, as between men and women, it was taken for granted that this was basic, common sense.
It's like if we developed a welfare program for the needy and the poor people, without actually defining who the poor were. Now we have wealthy people claiming a right to welfare because they need it, and they are poorer then Bill Gates.
How were they trying to redefine marriage? Marriage is a contract, that's it. If NY wants to allow gay marriage what right does the fed have to not grant equal benefits to gay married couple living in NY?
Oh, okay. So you're fine with gay people paying taxes, but not if they get any of the benefits. Gotcha.
Right, separate but equal works for them as long as it is about us. They want all the rights, all the benefits and all the privelages, yet want the right to deny it to anyone who does not suit them and that happens to be gay people because we do not get the protections that are there for everyone regardless of race, age or sex. We do not have the federal government on our side as of now, but when DOMA is abolished the playing field will be equalized for all US citizens, not just straight christian ones.
Gay marriage also falls under the 14th amendment. We are also US citizens, we deserve the same rights, the same privelages and the same benefits. We deserve full equal representation of the Federal Government, not a separate set of rules and rights for gay people.
I would argue that when government wants to create some new right, new program, or new law, they have to justify how and why this benefits society. It's why bridges to nowhere are rejected, just because some politician wants to do something, is not enough, they have to justify why they are doing it, and does the benefit exceed the costs and burdens associated with implementing it.
It's not always how government works, when it takes our money or dictates how must follow new laws, but it's how it should. I know, it's a pipe dream, because reality seems to be that government tells us how it's going to be, and we are not allowed to object, all we are for is to pay taxes, and shut up
It's easily understood why government was asked to endorse marriage. Men and women make babies, and we want to have those babies raised by their parents, so they grow up to be well adjusted, functioning and contributing members of society. these children grow up to be mothers and fathers, and create a strong social network of family, which takes care of each other, and reduces the burden from the rest of society and government.
We endorse marriage because we want to prevent bastards raised by single parents, raised by the state in foster homes or orphanages, because these erode the family unit and increase the financial burden on the state's social welfare systems.
In California ALONE there are 40,000 children being raised by same sex couples.
In Mississippi 26% of same sex couples are raising children.
In Salt lake city 25% of same sex couples are raising children.
Do our children not benefit from the stability and protections of having married parents?
I would argue that when government wants to create some new right, new program, or new law, they have to justify how and why this benefits society. It's why bridges to nowhere are rejected, just because some politician wants to do something, is not enough, they have to justify why they are doing it, and does the benefit exceed the costs and burdens associated with implementing it.
It's not always how government works, when it takes our money or dictates how must follow new laws, but it's how it should. I know, it's a pipe dream, because reality seems to be that government tells us how it's going to be, and we are not allowed to object, all we are for is to pay taxes, and shut up
It's easily understood why government was asked to endorse marriage. Men and women make babies, and we want to have those babies raised by their parents, so they grow up to be well adjusted, functioning and contributing members of society. these children grow up to be mothers and fathers, and create a strong social network of family, which takes care of each other, and reduces the burden from the rest of society and government.
We endorse marriage because we want to prevent bastards raised by single parents, raised by the state in foster homes or orphanages, because these erode the family unit and increase the financial burden on the state's social welfare systems.
So then, senior citizens should not be allowed to marry, nor should straight people who are sterile or choose to not have children. Bogus, marriage is a committment, the benefits and rights that go with it have zilch to do with Children, there are rights that go with having a child, but are not part of the 1049 plus or minus ones granted with a federal marriage certificate. DOMA was a federal law that was enacted to only protect straight marriages, as if they needed any protection. A divorce law is what should have been enacted if all of you were honestly so concerned about marriage and children. But that is not the true reality of the situation. DOMA was enacted as a direct attack against gay people and directly responsible for marriage discrimination against gay people.
Wealthy black people cannot claim welfare, but poor white people can???? Wow, there goes equal protection right out the window too, huh?
The point is, two white men cannot marry in most states, and neither can two black men, or two brown women, there you go, equal protection in action.
Ever heard of gender discrimination?
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can not marry a woman = Discrimination based on the gender of the people entering into the legal contract.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can not marry a man = Discrimination based on the gender of the people entering into the legal contract.
A man can be poor and claim welfare, a woman can be poor and claim welfare. No discrimination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
