DOMA has started to fall.

[GAYtheist]

No church can be made to marry any one they don't want to. Freeservant, have you even read the First Amendment? It protects all religious institutions from any legal recourse.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Gay people are not looking for religious weddings, we already have churches that will marry us, if we wanted to go to them. What we are looking for is the secular, legally binding, civil marriage that should be afforded to us. Amendment 14 protects minorities from unjust laws, like Prop. 8.

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment14/

Religious bigots, mind you that is not religious people, just the bigots, like to make laws stating that we are a country founding on Christianity. The founding fathers, however, thought otherwise.

Following examples copied from http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summ ... cular.html

George Washington-To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

Thomas Jefferson-Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

John Adams-Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

There is more on the website I showed above.

The religious right, meaning groups like NOM, FRC and the like will say this country was founded on Christian morals. This is wrong, many of the crimes we have are, indeed, common sense.  This is a secular nation, built of many religions, or lack thereof, many races, and many people. The judge in this case is correct. DOMA is unconstitutional.

To head off any ridiculous arguments, animals have no legal standing. Children are not old enough to sign any contracts until they reach 18 years of age. Polygamy was deemed unconstitutional years back. And again, this is not a Theocracy.

John

[GAYtheist]

THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/adoption_laws.asp

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

Any questions?

All good stuff as long as no-fault divorce is also eliminated for all civil unions and marriages that have children.  My parents divorced when I was 7 years old and I have been harmed as a consequence.  Children are the most important thing to any life long monogamous relationship so we need to protect children in any union and I also think it would make acceptance of LGBT unions more appealing if the elimination of no-fault is a plank of any effort.  This is important to preserving the institution of marriage and I think same sex unions are inevitable but not by means of culture war and judicial fiat.

OK, wait, so you're saying that you want people to stay in a loveless relationship because they have kids? Oh, no, that won't damage kids at all. The most important thing to any life long is love. L-O-V-E...you know that nice warm fuzzy feeling you get when you look at the person you marry, unless you can't stand that person and you're with them because you have children?

[Sophus]

All good stuff as long as no-fault divorce is also eliminated for all civil unions and marriages that have children.  My parents divorced when I was 7 years old and I have been harmed as a consequence.  Children are the most important thing to any life long monogamous relationship so we need to protect children in any union and I also think it would make acceptance of LGBT unions more appealing if the elimination of no-fault is a plank of any effort.  This is important to preserving the institution of marriage and I think same sex unions are inevitable but not by means of culture war and judicial fiat.

With all due respect, I don't think that's the best idea. Being trapped in a house with two parents who can't get along and don't want to be together isn't necessarily better. In fact, it's probably worse. But we're veering from the real issue.

[Whitney]

I would also point out that the institution of marriage has had huge problems well before gay marriage rights were on the table.  I'm frankly tired of religious people (who have a slightly higher divorce rate than atheists) babbling on about the sanctity of marriage and how whom other people marry somehow affects their own personal marriages.

Forcing people to stay married when they don't love each other won't make them magically start loving each other no matter how many kids the wife pops out.

Forcing people who love each other to not get married simply because they don't fit what some bigoted religious people consider appropriate for marriage won't make them love each other any less.

[karadan]

The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

No one is going to make you marry a gay person....get real.

Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.  

I'm heterosexual but never want children. If i eventually get married, does that mean my marriage won't be 'proper' because i decline to bring up any kids? Furthermore, what would be the difference between my marriage and that of a gay couple apart from the obvious 50% gender difference?

[Tank]

YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Very thoughtful post pinko, I had to google DOMA as it means nothing as a acronym to the uninitiated!
EDIT: Yes this is a good thing!

[KDbeads]

Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.  

I'm heterosexual but never want children. If i eventually get married, does that mean my marriage won't be 'proper' because i decline to bring up any kids? Furthermore, what would be the difference between my marriage and that of a gay couple apart from the obvious 50% gender difference?

Right there with you karadan.  Heterosexual and just being pregnant will most likely kill me, so does that mean my marriage isn't worthy or proper either because I can't contribute to the masses as your god wants?  If you think that then you are seriously screwed up.  What goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom/home is none of anyone's business.  Marriage rights for all consenting couples should be equal.

[GAYtheist]

Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.  

I'm heterosexual but never want children. If i eventually get married, does that mean my marriage won't be 'proper' because i decline to bring up any kids? Furthermore, what would be the difference between my marriage and that of a gay couple apart from the obvious 50% gender difference?

Right there with you karadan.  Heterosexual and just being pregnant will most likely kill me, so does that mean my marriage isn't worthy or proper either because I can't contribute to the masses as your god wants?  If you think that then you are seriously screwed up.  What goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom/home is none of anyone's business.  Marriage rights for all consenting couples should be equal.

What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

[KDbeads]

What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  

[Squid]

Ah yes, the old "it'll mess up the children argument" is rearing its head.  I remember seeing a similar argument in an article from the New York Times a few years back which I commented on in a blog I wrote:

Their argument is a developmental argument implying that gender role confusion, self-esteem issues and impaired social bond formation will arise â€" this is false.  It has been noted in scientific studies that children fair just as well as those of traditional couples (Wainright,  Russell & Patterson, 2004; MacCallum & Golobak, 2004; Meezan & Rauch, 2005 and many others).  Those thinking they hold evidence to the contrary are usually looking at the outcome of children in a single-parent versus double-parent home.  Children just need loving, caring and attentive parents - the gender of the parents will not negatively impact their development physically, psychologically or otherwise.  What will affect them negatively is the coarse, callous and bigoted people that tease, demean, discriminate against and bully the children and not their parents being the same sex.

References:

MacCallum, F. & Golombak, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence.  Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1407-1419.

Meezan, W. & Rauch, J. (2005). Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America’s children. The Future of Children, 15, 97-113.

Wainright, J., Russell, S. & Patterson, C. (2004). Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents.  Child Development, 75, 1886-1898.

[GAYtheist]

What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  

Can give hugs? (>v_v(<^_^<)  Sucks you had to go through that.

[pinkocommie]

It never fails to amaze me how some people feel justified in wanting to control other people's lives.  What the hell?  They hide behind the bible, lies about children of same sex couples being messed up, anything they can throw out there when in reality they're just bigots trying to control someone else's life because they, for whatever reason,think they have that right.  You can rest assured that future generations will look back on these people with shame, the same way we regard those jerks who tried to use the bible to justify not allowing interracial marriages.  It's blind ignorance and hate dressed up like concern topped off with a hey-god-makes-the-rules-I-just-enforce-them attitude that allows for total lack of accountability.

[KDbeads]

Can give hugs? (>v_v(<^_^<)  Sucks you had to go through that.

 
I view it as a life lesson on how not to behave.  It may have been the way I was raised but I don't have to live like it for the rest of my life.  But it has caused me damage, I can't be around people yelling or fighting loudly.  I break down and have flash backs and the blood pressure spikes to very unhealthy ranges.  I'm better than I used to be though and am still a productive member of society

[Asmodean]

I dislike the concept of marriage, but I dislike discrimination more. Thus, bloody well done!  

[freeservant]

What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  :verysad: