Because previous governments have taken a position on the subject. If previous governments had kept out, if there no law about marriage, then I bet the Obama administration wouldn’t care either.
It’s very important to remember that Clarence Thomas was single when he committed the crime of sexual harrassment, and was married when he committed the felony crime of lying under oath about his sexual harrassment….
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that sodomy cannot be criminalized, Lawrence v. Texas.DOMA is still being enforced and it’s enforcement will only stop if the Supreme Court rules it is unconstitutional.President Obama is not the first President to refuse to defend the government’s position in a Supreme Court case. In 1983 Reagan Administration reversed the position of 3 previous administrations in Bob Jones University vs. United States. Three previous administrations had argued that Bob Jones University should lose it’s tax exempt status because it racially discriminated. Reagan Administration reversed that view and sided with Bob Jones University in the Supreme Court.Bob Jones U. lost the case anyway by a 8-1 margin.
RIght, Jack. Obama is the first president ever to enter a friend of the court brief, and therefore should be impeached. I laud your understanding of civics.
Ahem. Considering that six of those nine blackbirds are Catholic, I wonder what their new Pope thinks of inclusive marriage rights. Hmm? And will they take that into account?
I just don’t live in a world where people have such opinions, and it’s shocking to read some of these comments. I am pleased to believe that the issue will be past history soon, since the tide is definitely turning in favor of gay rights.
Speaking as a psychologist, “perversity” was removed from psychological science as a term some time ago, as it is defined primarily by religions and has nothing to do with reality as such. It is a value statement. Homosexuality is not considered a psychological dysfunction.Following the dictionary definition, where it would be something (1) contrary, (2) wayward, (3) persistently wrong, or (4) wicked and corrupt, three of those definitions can be eliminated outright by pointing out that homosexuality exists in nature (not just in humans), and that the percentage of homosexuality appears to have been consistent throughout human history as far as we can tell — in Plato’s Symposium, one speaker praises love between men as the highest form of love, in fact.So that leaves “wicked and corrupt.” That’s YOUR definition. Personally, I know many gay and lesbian couples who are honorable, kind, utterly trustworthy and indeed truly Christian. Me, I’m straight and married nearly 25 years to my first and only wife. And I can see others who live the same way we do, except that they are of the same gender. And that’s all there is to it. It’s none of your damn business what goes on in other people’s private lives, and it CERTAINLY isn’t the government’s job to define marriage.
Oh, and the American Psychological Association removed any reference to homosexuality as a psychological dysfunction in the DSM-III in 1986. OVER 25 years ago. So, not a new thing.
You are trying to lure us into the trap of allowing you to define ‘Sexual Perversity’. I deny you that right. In some areas of the country sexual relations between a man and a woman of different skin color was a perversity – yet somehow female black slaves were giving birth to light-skinned babies. In other areas of the country sexual relations between White and ;colored’ were accepted – so long as there was no marriage. So contrary to your pretensions, the definition of sexual perversity has always been ambiguous. “Ah!”, You exclaim, “you are describing relations between a man and a woman, I am objecting to sexual relations between two men or two women!” That argument falls afoul of TWO sections of the Constitution. The First Amendment proscribes establishment of a State Religion, further expanded by the Supreme Court to forbid embracing ANY religion.
What is more science now allows us to accurately determine the sexual orientation (as opposed to the physical gender), and we now know that some people are actually GENETICALLY forced to prefer a relationship with members of their own gender. Denying those the right to marry violated the ‘Equal Protection’ clause of the Constitution.
if 2 or more competent adults want to hook up that is their business but what i object to is they expecting me to subsidize them. the 1st case bho decide not to enforce doma was a case involving inheritance tax on the estate of a donor
Once the marriage line is redrawn, it’s only a matter of time before we have other alternate marriage definitions. Somewhere along the way, even motivemagus will cry “halt.”
Other alternate marriage descriptions would have to be between CONSENTING adults. In some religions, polygamy is accepted. Man-boy love and bestiality both fail the test of consenting adults.
lonecat about 11 years ago
The people took the lead. The politicians are running to catch up.
lonecat about 11 years ago
Because previous governments have taken a position on the subject. If previous governments had kept out, if there no law about marriage, then I bet the Obama administration wouldn’t care either.
Godfreydaniel about 11 years ago
It’s very important to remember that Clarence Thomas was single when he committed the crime of sexual harrassment, and was married when he committed the felony crime of lying under oath about his sexual harrassment….
Rickapolis about 11 years ago
If the justices vote the law and not their personal politics the result is absolutely clear.
Rickapolis about 11 years ago
Do you write for ‘The Onion’?
Newshound41 about 11 years ago
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that sodomy cannot be criminalized, Lawrence v. Texas.DOMA is still being enforced and it’s enforcement will only stop if the Supreme Court rules it is unconstitutional.President Obama is not the first President to refuse to defend the government’s position in a Supreme Court case. In 1983 Reagan Administration reversed the position of 3 previous administrations in Bob Jones University vs. United States. Three previous administrations had argued that Bob Jones University should lose it’s tax exempt status because it racially discriminated. Reagan Administration reversed that view and sided with Bob Jones University in the Supreme Court.Bob Jones U. lost the case anyway by a 8-1 margin.
ARodney about 11 years ago
RIght, Jack. Obama is the first president ever to enter a friend of the court brief, and therefore should be impeached. I laud your understanding of civics.
edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago
And if you file a brief AGAINST a law, are you then an enemy of the court?
Alexander the Good Enough about 11 years ago
Ahem. Considering that six of those nine blackbirds are Catholic, I wonder what their new Pope thinks of inclusive marriage rights. Hmm? And will they take that into account?
lonecat about 11 years ago
I just don’t live in a world where people have such opinions, and it’s shocking to read some of these comments. I am pleased to believe that the issue will be past history soon, since the tide is definitely turning in favor of gay rights.
eafries1754 Premium Member about 11 years ago
Fear Monger! Picking on 10% of the population. Every person deserves the free choice to live with the person of their mutual attraction!
Motivemagus about 11 years ago
Speaking as a psychologist, “perversity” was removed from psychological science as a term some time ago, as it is defined primarily by religions and has nothing to do with reality as such. It is a value statement. Homosexuality is not considered a psychological dysfunction.Following the dictionary definition, where it would be something (1) contrary, (2) wayward, (3) persistently wrong, or (4) wicked and corrupt, three of those definitions can be eliminated outright by pointing out that homosexuality exists in nature (not just in humans), and that the percentage of homosexuality appears to have been consistent throughout human history as far as we can tell — in Plato’s Symposium, one speaker praises love between men as the highest form of love, in fact.So that leaves “wicked and corrupt.” That’s YOUR definition. Personally, I know many gay and lesbian couples who are honorable, kind, utterly trustworthy and indeed truly Christian. Me, I’m straight and married nearly 25 years to my first and only wife. And I can see others who live the same way we do, except that they are of the same gender. And that’s all there is to it. It’s none of your damn business what goes on in other people’s private lives, and it CERTAINLY isn’t the government’s job to define marriage.
Motivemagus about 11 years ago
Oh, and the American Psychological Association removed any reference to homosexuality as a psychological dysfunction in the DSM-III in 1986. OVER 25 years ago. So, not a new thing.
alex Coke Premium Member about 11 years ago
Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
perhaps each and every marriage, gay and straight, should be voted on by the general public. that sounds fair.
PlainBill about 11 years ago
You are trying to lure us into the trap of allowing you to define ‘Sexual Perversity’. I deny you that right. In some areas of the country sexual relations between a man and a woman of different skin color was a perversity – yet somehow female black slaves were giving birth to light-skinned babies. In other areas of the country sexual relations between White and ;colored’ were accepted – so long as there was no marriage. So contrary to your pretensions, the definition of sexual perversity has always been ambiguous. “Ah!”, You exclaim, “you are describing relations between a man and a woman, I am objecting to sexual relations between two men or two women!” That argument falls afoul of TWO sections of the Constitution. The First Amendment proscribes establishment of a State Religion, further expanded by the Supreme Court to forbid embracing ANY religion.
What is more science now allows us to accurately determine the sexual orientation (as opposed to the physical gender), and we now know that some people are actually GENETICALLY forced to prefer a relationship with members of their own gender. Denying those the right to marry violated the ‘Equal Protection’ clause of the Constitution.
oneoldhat about 11 years ago
if 2 or more competent adults want to hook up that is their business but what i object to is they expecting me to subsidize them. the 1st case bho decide not to enforce doma was a case involving inheritance tax on the estate of a donor
SABRSteve about 11 years ago
Once the marriage line is redrawn, it’s only a matter of time before we have other alternate marriage definitions. Somewhere along the way, even motivemagus will cry “halt.”
SavannahJim Premium Member about 11 years ago
Saw a shirt on Bourbon Street recently. “OMG! I said I hate FIGS!”, so sayeth the Lord.
edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago
Other alternate marriage descriptions would have to be between CONSENTING adults. In some religions, polygamy is accepted. Man-boy love and bestiality both fail the test of consenting adults.
dubledeuce about 11 years ago
No, that was just a MORAN acting like a MORAN