Comments on: Legislation proposed to repeal DOMA

By: Michael Martin

Michael Martin — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:08:02 +0000

Xion (#34): AMEN!!

By: Xion

Xion — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:50:39 +0000

#27 Scott You’re right, gays will never be happy until we’re not treated as 2nd class citizens.

My point was not about rights, but about words defined in the English language. If you want to have a life-long relationship with a toaster, go right ahead. Just don’t call it marriage.

I didn’t realize you considered yourself gay. Now I understand your anger. You aren’t gay, of course. You are male, I presume. And the only other kind of person is female. There are no other kinds of humans. A homosexual is a person who identifies with certain behaviors.

You aren’t a 2nd class citizen. There is no such thing in America. Everyone is equal under the law. But that isn’t enough. You want to be more equal than others. You want to assign special rights to those who make certain behavioral choices.

What is to prevent nose pickers or tobacco chewers from co-opting special rights for themselves? One you declare any bizarre behavior to set you apart as a special class of citizen with special rights, there will be no end to loony claims to the same rights.

Polygamy is already becoming an issue again. Next people will want to marry children, animals and kitchen appliances.

I do not care if you call those things civil unions or pimp fests. Just don’t call it marriage. It isn’t.

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:39:45 +0000

DOMA defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. This also potentially negatively impacts the desired social security benefits for polygamiests and polyamorists too. If “marriage” was anything that anyone wanted it to be at any time, then NO one’s social security benefits would be impacted by it. Is that what we want?

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:35:12 +0000

#10 represents a serious misunderstanding of conservative thinking. Scroop Moth wrote; “We know what the conservative argument against gay marriage will be: politics.”

Incorrect. It’s morality, not politics. Conservatives care more about marriage than politics. A conservative candidate who wanted to deconstruct marriage and honestly voiced that policy would not get far, no matter how conservative he or she was on other policies.

The fact is that DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996 by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. To implicitly or explicitly primarily blame conservatives for this law is disingenuous, and a politically partisan twisted spin too.

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:17:03 +0000

MYNOCK wrote; “Millions of heterosexuals have dozens of sexual partners without causing ambiguity about who gets their social security benefits if they die.”

Actually, any and all forms of such sexual chaos can and often does cause both ambiguity AND radical changes with regard to who gets Social Security benefits–because such sexual chaos often leads to divorce and other forms of permenant break-down in relationships. But my clarification here does not necessarily speak to the specific argument over repealing DOMA or not–I am just clarifying that either way, sexual chaoes does indeed often cause chaos and ambiguity in who gets Soc. Sec. benefits in the long run.

Report comment to moderator

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:53:35 +0000

I guess the constitution is the only contract that can be reinterpreted and usually quite expansive and liberal by the interpreters.
How sad if folks were as flippant and loose with the terms of a rental lease or other binding contracts as they are with the constitution of our Republic!

Report comment to moderator

By: Oldhickory68

Oldhickory68 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:47:02 +0000

Of course, Mynock.

My point was again, to suggest that marriage is an unchanging institution.

The Constitution is not.

Must what is transient define what is sacred?

Report comment to moderator

By: mynock

mynock — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:57:13 +0000

The philosophy that the constitution exists as a living document WAS the framers’ intent. Read Federalist 84.

Report comment to moderator

By: scott

scott — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:17:37 +0000

That’s the funny part Xion, no one that I know is trying to change christian marriage. I’m glad to see that you can “suffer” through others’ misery of being 2nd class citizens. It’s very big of you. You’re right, gays will never be happy until we’re not treated as 2nd class citizens. Again, sorry you regret for that kind of non-discrimination and inclusion.

Report comment to moderator

By: Xion

Xion — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:28:59 +0000

Christian marriage can never be changed by civil law. I can suffer with civil unions as long as they never call it marriage. It isn’t marriage and can never be. But gays will never be happy until they supplant and usurp the title for themselves. That is my only regret.

Report comment to moderator