Will This Be An Issue In November?

Eight years ago, a hot button issue was whether or not there should be an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Georgia and a number of other states in the Union have made amendments to their respective state constitutions to define marriage as such. There are a few states, on the other hand, that have made gay marriage legal.

A day after the voters in North Carolina adopted a constitutional amendment to define marriage, President Barack Obama “responded” to Vice President Joe Biden’s comment about same-sex marriage and endorsed the idea. I believe Obama is an intelligent and astute politician. He won’t let a good distraction go to waste. I don’t believe Biden’s comments were planned by the White House, but I do believe Obama’s response was a fly ball hit into outfield during a day game in hopes that the outfielders would be distracted by the sun and let it drop for a base hit….maybe a double.

What do I mean by the baseball reference? Think about this: unemployment is still high, the economy is seemingly stalled, gas prices are much higher than they were when Obama took office, debt has been accumulating faster than the speed of light, he has spent more in his 3 years in office than his predecessors combined, and the Republicans have a decent chance of winning back the legislative branch. What better way to keep conservatives’ eyes off of the ball than to distract them with a less-pressing, but very controversial, social question?

Essentially, he has nothing to lose in this matter. I surmise that Obama figures that he won’t be getting a lot of the conservative Democrats’ vote. They may vote for Romney, skip that office on the ballot, or just stay home on election day. If I were to make a guess, it would be that this move is mainly to energize the young voters who have been turned off by Obama in recent months and hopefully get them out to the polls to re-elect the “hip, young, cool” President. Of course, Hollywood is agog to hear that Obama has flip-flopped “evolved” into a vogue “progressive” opinion on this matter.

Some may and probably do disagree with me, but I believe we have many more important issues to be concerned about rather than trying to elevate this issue about gay marriage to a federal issue (heck, I think even Obama agrees that it’s something that should be decided at the state level…I just hope he maintains that position).

To my fellow conservatives, keep your eye on the ball.  Keep your shades on when trying to catch that pop-up fly ball.


  1. saltycracker says:

    Maybe the wise reaction is to end archaic spousal rights of employees when it comes to
    public benefits such as taxpayer supported health care or retirement for those not directly public employees. At the private level involvement is an
    option and many times an employee cost.

  2. Three Jack says:

    How can it be an issue? Both presidential candidates essentially have taken the same position that states should decide the issue. Only difference being Obama personally supports gay marriage because his young daughters convinced him while Mitt personally opposes it (yet supports gay adoption). Just like so many other more important issues, the 2 major party candidates have the same or very similar views.

  3. benevolus says:

    If the problem is that marriage is a religious concept, then the mistake was made many, many years ago by using that word to define tax status and in many other legal areas. It’s probably way too late now for the faithful to “protect” this word as a religious concept. Too many people’s civil rights are dependent on it now. It’s been turned loose into the wild heathen world and can never be what it (allegedly) was.

    Maybe if churches want to define certain unions between some specific couples (but not others) they need to come up with a new word for that.

  4. ricstewart says:

    I’m amazed at how effectively the left has been able to direct the political narrative to issues like gay marriage and contraception to 1) distract from their own economic failures and broken promises and 2) make the right look petty and irrelevant.
    I shouldn’t be surprised, though. It’s not like Republicans have much substance, either. So they’ve been playing into the left’s hand.

    • ricstewart says:

      I should say I’m also amazed at how quickly progressives have forgotten the promises President Obama has broken. Closing Gitmo? Nope. Protecting civil liberties? Nope. Immigration reform? No: Obama has deported more people than any other president. And what about all his anti-war promises on the campaign trail in 2008?

  5. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    “I don’t believe Biden’s comments were planned by the White House, but I do believe Obama’s response was a fly ball hit into outfield during a day game in hopes that the outfielders would be distracted by the sun and let it drop for a base hit….maybe a double.”

    Well, I do believe that Biden’s comments were planned by the White House…because I’m an admittedly extremely cynical p*ick who wouldn’t put it past the Obama White House to pull some kind of cheap political stunt, any cheap political stunt (contraception, spiking the football on Bin Laden, gay marriage, etc) to attempt to change the issue and distract from their failings on the economy.

  6. Jimmie says:

    I agree TLDiG. It’s always planned. This was perfect timing. It energized the blind following youth again. Anyone with half a brain could see his pandering here. It took him 3 years and 5 months to get off the fence on the matter.

  7. James says:

    Great advice, Nathan — too bad it will be ignored. Opposition to gay rights is like catnip to most conservatives.

    And Jimmie, I appreciate your comment that Obama’s response “energized the blind following youth.” I imagine that similar criticism was levied at Lincoln when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, or when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard. Must be awesome being on the wrong side of history.

    • Jimmie says:

      Blind in they will not see it for what it is. A political ploy. I could care less if same sex people wanna marry. Opposite sex marriages do the sanctity of marriage such justice why not let LG improve the percentages a little bit. They’re here and they’re queer. Move on.

  8. Harry says:

    It was a desperation move by Obama to hold onto his corps of homosexual supporters and – more importantly – contributors. Many major bundlers are gay, and Obama needs the money. Once Biden opened his yap Obama was under pressure from them. Despite what you may think you know, many, myself included, many Democrats included, are still strong believers in traditional marriage. I heard an anecdotal story that when the news came over that Obama had done this, two black patients in a doctor’s office announced they would not be voting for Obama. Think of all the Hispanics, blacks, Islamics not to mention various Catholics and fundamentalists that Obama just turned off. He really screwed the pooch this time, thanks to Biden. The tentative poll numbers have dropped 5 or 6 points for Obama since this happened, and it may get worse. So spin it how you like, but it looks like Obama is toast. Of course, you won’t get all this from the media…but check out what is talked about in churches, family gatherings and other religious centers.

    • James says:

      Harry, if the logic of “announce support for gay marriage = lose election” were as sound as you believe it to be, Obama probably would not have made said announcement. You don’t get to be POTUS by being a political hack. I’m not saying that the decision won’t cost him any votes, but the right’s hosannas of “election over” or your own prediction that “Obama is toast” is a little premature.

      • Harry says:

        BO doesn’t have anywhere near a billion, and the burn rate is pretty high with those couple hundred white boys sitting around in his campaign headquarters in Chicago. He’s toast.

  9. John Konop says:

    I thought it was an issue until i figure out that no one was forcing us to marry gay people. As long as I can choose my partner I have no issue. 🙂

    • Harry says:

      Some of us take aesthetic or religious offense with being forced to accept homos as legally married or in recognized “unions” 🙂

      So I guess in a democracy it comes down to who has the most votes to prevail.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      That’s how I feel about it Konop.

      Religiously, I figure if God is spiteful enough to condemn me for the act of two men in California I don’t even know sleeping in bed together, would I really want to spend eternity with God anyway? I mean, if that’s the kind of God he is, what happens if I forget to roll the garbage can out to the road on heaven’s trash day? Wrathful father for eternity? Not my idea of salvation.

      (I tend to think God can handle his own condemnations without help from the U.S. government, although that’ll never stop the government from thinking it is god or keep people from worshiping it).

  10. SallyForth says:

    Will it be an issue? Has a chicken got lips? Nonetheless, according to today’s news, regular old heterosexual marriages are waaaay down from historical numbers, with about 50% of couples living together without being married. ‘Seems the general populace has decided marriage is not so hot after all. I still can’t figure why homosexuals think it’s such a great thing to do.

    • I can give you at least one reason, though I’m sure there are plenty of others. A female friend of ours is in a long distance relationship with a female that lives in Wales. They spend time visiting each other as often as possible and communicate by Skype several times / hours a day. But the person living in Wales doesn’t have a skilled job that is in high demand to be able to immigrate to the United States on her own. There might be a possibility of her moving here if they could get married (like heterosexual couples are allowed to do)… but alas… they’re both females. So instead, our friend here is in the process of going through all the required procedures to marry the person in Wales and move there. We’d love to keep our friend here and have the person in Wales move to the US. Unfortunately, that’s apparently not in the cards anytime soon.

  11. saltycracker says:

    Agree – it is a state decision and we have a lot bigger issues at the Federal level.

    In the secular world sexual lifestyle is a personal & private matter. It has no place in employment consideration (generally).
    In the religous world same sex marriage is or should not be blessed as it is an aberrant sexual lifestyle.

    If the traditional idea of marriage is regulatorily kaput then the traditional laws surrounding such should be altered too. And according to the gay supporters there are over 1,000 laws to consider.

    Wonder if anyone has put a pencil to the cost if they cast out the traditional definition and leave in all the benefits ? If left, where is the revenue to come from ?

    Excerpt from about.com/gay life:

    To give readers a sense of the kinds of federal laws in which marital status is a factor, we
    classified the laws on the list into the following 13 categories:

    Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
    Veterans’ Benefits
    Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
    Employment Benefits and Related Laws
    Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
    Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
    Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
    Crimes and Family Violence
    Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
    Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
    Miscellaneous Laws

    Full discussion on:

  12. you says:

    Marriage is the number one cause of divorce. 🙂
    Why should heterosexuals be the only ones with that “benefit”? Heck, gay marriage may lower the divorce rate.

  13. saltycracker says:

    States rights:
    Also suspect that Obama is setting the table to declare that the states have gone too far and this is a Federal civil rights event.

    • James says:

      When someone says “gay marriage is a states’ rights issue,” what they are really saying is “I’m personally against gay marriage for religious/moral/ickiness reasons but don’t want to say so publically.” Which is funny, because no one ever said “well, I’m personally for womens’ suffrage, but it’s a states’ rights issue” or “I personally think blacks should have civil rights, but the states should figure that one out on their own.”

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Then you are either for a constitutional amendment stating marriage is something other than a relationship between a man and a woman, or you empower the states to make that determination. With 30 states banning gay marriage, neither prospect seems likely.

        • James says:

          I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment. We need a court to rule that state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage violate the 1st and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitition. It’s actually a pretty easy legal analysis.

          • Harry says:

            You just made the best argument for electing Romney – to prevent Obama from appointing more judges.

            • John Konop says:

              Do you think gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples? And if not what rights should they not have and why? Btw if they are not given the same rights should they be given a discount on taxes if the lack of rights cost them money? Please point on the exact language in the constitution that prohibits gay couples from having the same rights?

              • Harry says:

                No, they should not have the same rights as married couples, and there is nothing in national law or precedent, or in societal needs, that would confer the same rights. The state of being homosexual is a miscue in natural selection, and the world’s cultures understand this. Only Western elites and their dupes refuse to acknowledge the reality – and this misstep will be corrected in the future. Anyone who feels homosexual should keep it to themselves, and not be flaunting what they perceive to be their rights.

                • John Konop says:

                  In all due respect, if it is not in the constitution to probit gay marriage are you not asking the court to be an activist with this issue?

                  • Harry says:

                    Yes – nothing about Homosexuality is in the Constitution, and I’m not asking the Court to do anything. If Massachusetts etc. want to extend marital rights and monetary benefits to “gays”, that’s their business. I don’t have to live there.

                    • John Konop says:

                      You are for not banning gay marriage on a federal level? Would that not put you in agreement with Obama not Romney on this issue? From what I understand Obama is for the state to make law on this issue and Romney is for a federal ban.

            • James says:

              Yes, god forbid I want a judge to strictly uphold the text of the U.S. Constitution — you know, those little things like “equal protection” and “no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Pretty easy legal analysis? All right, let’s dig into it. In the 14th, would it be correct to assume that you are looking at: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?” Dred Scott was about if black people were citizens and had standing to sue in court. From that, equal application of the law ensued…in theory. First amendment, freedom of speech, doesn’t necessarily dig into who can enter into what types of contracts. It’s also well established that not all forms of freedom of speech are accepted as covered under the first.

            Now is marriage a right or a privilege?

            If it is a right, then the 14th may not apply. As far as I know, the SCOTUS has yet to rule that marriage is a contract solely between a man or a woman or if it is a contract that may be entered into by members of the same sex. Still think it’s easy?

            • John Konop says:

              It would seem that since people are given special tax status and other rights via marriage it would be a right. Now if it did not affect any rights,income,taxes,entitlements……..you would have a point. Remember a major issue in our country is taxation without representation.

              • saltycracker says:


                Maybe, it’s representation without taxation – tapping into benefits via spousal/dependent privileges without paying into them.

                To clarify matters for us, could you list the sexually aberrant lifestyles you are ok to call a secular/civil/legal marriage ? And which ones would you exclude ?

                • John Konop says:

                  I am no lawyer but the threshold should be age of consent and human beings. In matters like this we should focus more on our self and less on judging others. One of my best friend’s daughter came out of the closet. My friend told me she is my blood and I will fully support her. I told him if she ever got married I would treat her the same as all my friends kids………………God is about love end of story.

            • James says:

              Doug – I’m looking at the section of the 14th Amendment that says “nor shall any state . . .deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” The analysis of whether gay marriage is a right or a privilege is irrelevant. The question is whether a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage creates unequal treatment between heterosexuals and homosexuals and, therefore, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause (which applies to the states via the 14th Amendment). This is the question that SCOTUS will one day resolve. And the answer to that question, of course, is a resounding yes.

              Now, I’m sure you know your con law basics, so you’ll tell me next that there are legitimate state interests in “protecting traditional marriage”–whatever that is–and that the state constitutional amendments do not violate the equal protection clause. Problem is, that argument completely sucks. Check out Judge Walker’s Prop 8 decision to see just how bad the evidence is of “the need to protect traditional marriage.” Or better yet, read the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision striking down that state’s law against gay marriage on equal protection grounds. To paraphrase the Iowa Supreme Court–“you guys are talking tradition, but you really hate gay marriage on religious grounds, and that’s not an appropriate basis for any law.”

              • John Vestal says:

                There’s certainly language within the SCOTUS’ ruling on Loving v. Virginia which one could objectively see drawn into parallel here.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  Loving V. Virginia is based on race, not sexual orientation. The question is, is sexual orientation a protected class as race, religion, age and so on?

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I am interested in how you know it will be a resounding yes. In a 5-4 ruling in 1986, Bowers V. Hardwick, SCOTUS upheld a Georgia law banning sodomy.

                Quotes from the judges:

                “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

                “to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”

                If I were you, I would have cited Romer v Evans, or Reeed v Reed. I remember the Walker ruling. I also remember that Walker didn’t disclose that he was in a homosexual relationship for 10 years until after the trail. Walker had an interest in the outcome and decided not to recuse himself. That’s one judges opinion. I’d be interested to see what SCOTUS had to say on prop 8.

                In Iowa, three of the Iowa Supreme Court judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage were tossed out in the following election. There have been attempts to change the Iowa constitution to ban gay marriage since then, but the haven’t quite got there yet. Iowa is one state. Right now, if you want to live in a homosexual marriage, you can go to Iowa. Georgia says “no.”

                • James says:

                  Doug – you know that Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned only a few years later, right? To quote Lawrence v. Texas: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”

                  Ah, the old “can’t trust Judge Walker’s reasoning because he’s a gay.” That’s a sour grapes argument. And it didn’t work in the 9th circuit.

                  Here’s the million dollar question — why does Georgia say “no?” Or let me ask the question a different way. Give me a reason why gays should be precluded from marrying that DOES NOT rely on “religion” or “tradition” (both of which don’t pass constitutional muster). If you can come up with a legitimate reason, you’ll be a multimillionaire soon, as no one else has done so yet.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    O.C.G.A. 19-3-3.1. Marriages between persons of same sex prohibited; marriages not recognized

                    Georgia says “no” because the Senators, Representatives, and a Governor we elected in a republic form of government agreed upon the issue and passed it into law. If you want to ask them specifically why they did so, I think most of those phone numbers are still in the public domain.

                    • James says:

                      Nice cop-out answer, but I’ll accept it. I have a feeling that if I asked the politicians why they voted in favor of the statute, they’d say “cause my constituents would kill me otherwise.” You ask the constituents, and they’ll say things like “Gay marriage offends my religion” or “Marriage has been one man, one woman for centuries. Why change that?”

                      As you know, neither of these responses satisfies the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      You say “cop out,” I say “facts.” I am not on the SCOTUS and neither are you. We can look at past cases and make educated guesses on what they would say, but that doesn’t mean we know what they would do. The will of the people seems to be largely against same sex marriage.

                      Even if you are correct on saying the 14th applies, and I’m not saying it does, what is to prevent a “marriage amendment” to the constitution? It seems that the will is there, with over 30 states having bans in place already.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    As far as Lawrence v. Texas goes, it was a 6 to 3 ruling. It is a great reason why this issue may be important in November. The President makes the pick and the Senate has to confirm or reject.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Question: Isn’t the 9th Circuit the most reversed jurisdiction in the country?

                    • James says:

                      Nothing to prevent a marriage amendment. If the country really wants to make marriage=one man, one woman, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to that effect will do the trick. Question is, can you get 38 states to approve that amendment?

                      The better question is how long will that amendment last? I tend to agree with you that, given the prevailing political / religious views in this country, a challenge to anti-gay marriage statutes may not prevail today. But society’s changing quickly. Religious views against gay marriage are rapidly becoming outdated. In 20 years, we’ll be laughing that we even had this conversation, and gay marriage opponents will be compared to George Wallace and Strom Thurmond — guys on the wrong side of history.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      38 out of 57? j/k…I don’t think it will get that far until SCOTUS agrees with you, if it ever does.

  14. The Iron Horse says:

    I’d prefer the national conversation be about a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution instead…

  15. Harry says:

    Obama is under heavy pressure from the gay community to do big things for their agenda at the federal level during his putative second term….you can be sure of that. Already they tried to marry gays in military chapels. But really they’re going for a much bigger game, namely anti-discrimination and eventually, federally-mandated job quotas in governmental and private sector hiring. Mandating by federal law that every governmental and private entity must provide equal benefits to “gay partners”. Don’t kid yourself.

  16. I Miss the 90s says:


    I just realized that I rarely comment on your posts. Here you go:

    Sure, President Obama had.nothing to lose with his “announcement” that he supports same-sex marriage (which he did 14 yrs ago)

    Will it matter? Probably not. Why? Because there are no conservative Democrats.

    Once againw, the gop is on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. I thought you people were for small government (yeah, I know. The whole small govt thing is code for opressing people you hate).

    Santorum and the rest are myopic for thinking this was a potent weapon.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      You are fooling yourself if you think President Obama has nothing to lose with his announcement that he support same sex marriages. The battle in 2012 will be for independent voters. Same sex marriages will not be on the top list of concerns, but for some it might be a deciding factor. It’s not about conservative Democrats. Heath Shuler of N.C. and a few remaining blue dogs will tell you they still exist.

      When has the GOP been on the wrong side of a civil rights issue? The backlash in the 1960’s was from southern Dems much more so than from Republicans.

      Santorum was trying to win the GOP nomination. He got dollars and votes because of his positions on issues like this. They weren’t enough to get him the nomination.

  17. saltycracker says:

    Does an inclusive man/woman definition of marriage violate the civil rights of those excluded ?
    If so why not just end all “marriage” statutes and all related laws ?
    If not or you desire to expand the group, which sexually aberrant lifestyles would you include in a secular/civil/legal marriage ?
    And which ones would you exclude ?

    • James says:

      saltycracker — if people in “sexually aberrant lifestyles” can be excluded from a secular/civil/legal marriage, who gets to decide what constitutes a “sexually aberrant lifestyle”? What gives you the right to do so? That’s the point of this whole debate.

      I–and millions and millions of others–don’t think there’s anything “sexually aberrant” about two committed adults who want to get married but happen to be homosexual.

      • saltycracker says:

        Science and Webster can explain aberrant to you, defining marriage is a cultural/societal decision.

        Homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior (not talking religious morality here) and including it in the definition of marriage is the debate. Or maybe ending “marriage” in legal terms as a violation of civil (individual/gender) rights.

        • James says:

          Homosexuality is not aberrant from a natural or scientific perspective. It exists in nature, both in humans and in animals. Always has, always will.

          You may believe homosexuality to be aberrant from a “cultural/societal” perspective but, guess what? Mixed-raced relationships were once considered culturally aberrant, as was integration. Ownership of slaves, on the other hand, was considered socially acceptable. Culture and society are simply not the best arbiters of what is moral or right. The argument that “gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because homosexuality is culturally aberrant” is wrong for two reasons: (a) it relies on the false premise that whatever is deemed “culturally acceptable” is always morally right (nope) and, more importantly; (b) it omits the fact that a huge segment of the population does not believe there is anything aberrant about homosexuality. Myself included.

          I think your argument about ending marriage in “legal terms” is a bit of a red herring. For better or for worse, everyone seems to agree that the concept of marriage has important legal and non-legal benefits. That’s why gays want in the club, so to speak. And if gay marriage opponents didn’t believe that marriage was important, they wouldn’t have any problems letting homosexuals in that club. So the answer isn’t just “let’s end the concept of marriage.” That will never happen.

          • saltycracker says:

            WTF ? Where did you conclude I thought aberrant sexual behavior did not exist in nature or that some aberrant sexual behavior might not be culturally acceptable ?
            I did say aberrant sexual orientations, like homosexuality, should not be in a legal definition of marriage.

            We should not exclude gays from our friends, neighbors, workplace, schools, church or deny gays contractual rights. But inclusion in the current concept of marriage as imbeded in our laws, taxes and benefits ? no.

            • James says:

              “But included in the current concept of marriage as imbedded in our laws, taxes and benefits. No.” My question–why not?

              And since I have a feeling you’re going to answer by responding “because homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior,” let me be more specific: why is it ok (by your own logic) to have “sexual aberrants” as friends, neighbors, etc., but not to grant them the privileges that come with marriage?

              And I’m not just talking about potential legal privileges. You and I both know that gays aren’t looking for the ability to call themselves “married” merely for the legal benefits they may be afforded under that designation.

          • Calypso says:

            So, how do married gay folk in states which legally recognize gay marriage file their taxes, both state and federal? With the definition you show the IRS uses, the feds don’t seem to recognize certain state laws regarding marriage.

            • James says:

              They have to file separately for federal tax purposes. You’re right that the feds (or perhaps more specifically, the IRS) don’t recognize state same-sex marriage laws.

  18. SallyForth says:

    Sex, sex, sex! So much public discussion about people’s sex lives – why do homosexuals keep forcing their sex lives into the public arena? Is the virtue of modesty totally forgotten? The dictionary definition of “gay” means “happy”, but doesn’t sound like there’s much happiness going on. :-\

    Going back to basics, marriage is a specific legal contract between two people of opposite sexes, established centuries ago to promote propagation of the species. Same-sex couples cannot biologically propagate the species, so that particular contract is not applicable. But for all of the reasons set forth by the homosexual community as their goals, there are no restrictions on their civil rights in any way. They can easily sign contracts designating each other for medical decisions and provision of medical care, name each other as beneficiaries on all insurance and investment instruments, write wills designating each other as beneficiaries of everything they have, do first-to-die agreements and legal instruments, adopt children together, etc. ad infinitum — ANYTHING desired to accomplish can already be done so in civil law.

    All this being the case, there are no civil rights of anybody being infringed upon. It seems that the homosexual community simply wants to stick it to all the people who do not have the same kind of sexual preferences, and to force a divisive public discussion based on their sex lives.

      • SallyForth says:

        Nope, I saw it and it stands on its own. There is no civil right for people to file joint tax returns – that can only be done under contractual agreements, marriage being one type of those contracts. Any two people can do a LLC or any sort of partnership contract and file their little hearts out together.

    • James says:

      “Marriage is a specific legal contract between two people of opposite sexes, established centuries ago to promote propagation of the species.”

      What is the evidence for this statement? In what non-religious text do I find this “specific legal contract”?

      • SallyForth says:

        Read some ancient history, Greek and Roman history, Old English history, etc. and focus on the topic. Then when your eyeballs start to fall out from reading all that history to bring you up to date, take a look at the Georgia Code Annotated.

        • James says:

          SallyForth, that doesn’t really answer the question. If anything, history shows that marriage concerns itself with a male’s property rights and the distribution of his assets upon death. For every text concerning itself with procreation (and, as you have to admit, these are almost all related to religion), I’ll show you one that deals with a separate issue.

          Now, here’s the bigger issue — who gives a damn what the Greeks, Romans, and dark-ages Englishmen thought about marriage? This is 2012, not 12, 1012, or 1512. Attitudes change. So if you’re going to deny someone equal protection of the laws, at least give me a legitimate reason that holds water today–not “because that’s the way it’s always been.” I need not point out again that, throughout the vast majority of history, slavery was ok. Are you seriously going to argue that slavery should be legal because the Romans, Greeks, and–gasp–the Bible all support the practice?

          • SallyForth says:

            Of course not, James. I never go with the “way it’s always been” argument on any given issue. Re the point at hand, I simply do not know of any civil right that cannot be accessed via existing legal avenues. Since most Americans seem to equate the legal contract of marriage with their religious beliefs, I say we should respect their freedom of religion and follow other available routes to the stated goals of the homosexual community. Why fight and argue when there peaceful means? In the words of that sage Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

            For now, I’ve gotta log off and hit the @#*&# Atlanta traffic! Peace, brother!

            • John Konop says:


              ….Since most Americans seem to equate the legal contract of marriage with their religious beliefs, I say we should respect their freedom of religion……..

              If I follow your logic:

              Do you think people who have been married by judges should have less rights since it was not a religious ceremony?

              • SallyForth says:

                ‘Morning, John. Of course not. You didn’t follow my logic – I pointed out that marriage is a specific legal contract. Consequently, no matter whether it is conducted by a judge or a preacher, it is the same legal contract. Whether or not to do it in a religious setting is a matter of choice.

                • John Konop says:


                  If it is just a legal contract, and does not matter if it is a religious ceremony, than why should gay people not be able to enter into a contact?

                  • SallyForth says:

                    I said above that same sex couples can enter into all sorts of contracts to accomplish any goals, without forcing the public into their sex life? (see above post for listing)
                    I give up on trying to reason – this going round and round in circles is making me dizzy! :-\
                    10-10 and listening……

                    • John Konop says:


                      In all due respect, I do like reading your comments and we have been on the same side on many issues over the years. I hope you did not take my questions in a disrespectful manner. I just think it is none of my business what people do behind closed doors as consenting adults. Finally I really do think allowing gay people to marry promotes anything other than tolerance and monogamous relationships.

  19. elfiii says:

    This is not an election issue in November. It is newspaper headline material only. Much ado about nothing. This scandal will be forgotten as soon as it runs out of legs which will be in about 5,4,3,2…..

  20. gcp says:

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another…. For those that want to change the definition of marriage which other legal terms would you like to change? Murder, theft, suicide, contract?

    • James says:

      gcp – try looking at a Black’s Law Dictionary that’s been updated sometime this century. Here’s how my 9th edition defines marriage: “The legal union of a couple as spouses. The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law.”

      • Harry says:

        Now there’s an example of PC for sure. Homosexual marriage isn’t legal in any jurisdiction I live under in this century.

        • James says:

          I don’t see anything in Blacks about “legal union of one man and one woman.” It’s encouraging to me when opponents of gay marriage have to make arguments up out of thin air to support their positions–it means I’m on the right side of the topic.

          While I appreciate your reliance on the old slippery slope argument, I won’t take the bait. Murder is murder, theft is theft, contracts are contracts. Don’t tell me you’re one of those guys who thinks “first they let the gays marry, then they’ll let people marry animals!” Don’t be so sheltered.

  21. gcp says:

    I was looking at the abridged fifth edition. Once again, the point is that any definition can be changed to support one’s point of view.

    • James says:

      I couldn’t agree with you more, gcp. That’s why I don’t buy the argument that “marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.” Defined by whom? Not me.

Comments are closed.