Mass. Sues Feds Over Definition of Marriage

then don't deny them equal protections under the law.

So wait, what does that make the straight, just as insecure? There are more reasons for people to get married than just love.

it makes them a slave to religion...and homosexuals (whom most declare are liberals and athiests) are fighting tooth and nail to be slaves as well..FIND THE IDIOCY ON THAT ONE??

what other reasons can that be???????????????and I already know what you are goign to say and i say "legal union"...its all new and it cam own this but NOOOO you prefer the good ol fashion religious type..hummmmmmm i cant seem to understand what they homosexuals want..

Man, you really need to get your facts straight. One can be married without belonging to a religion, or be married in a ceremony without any form of religious aspects. What the gay community wants, more than anything else, is to be treated with the same respect that we treat any other married couple. You're the type of person who 40 years ago, would be screaming that we don't want whites and blacks, or Hispanics and Asians to marry, or that blacks don't deserve the right to vote, or be equal citizens of the country. You're living in a dead past, while society is growing beyond your blind beliefs in one superior group of people. Hitler and his beliefs died, let them go.

your a fool if you think gay marriage is about a religion sanctifying the union. Its about all the legal benefits afforded to married couples that are denied to homosexual.

I have heard stories of how a homosexual was in the hospital and the doctor needed procedures approved of. But because their homosexual "partner" was legally considered no more then a friend, they weren't able to consent to anything, be informed of the situation, and they even had to leave once visiting hours were over! The dr. had to called the parents who had all but disowned their kid decades ago when he announced he was gay. This is an example why being married is important to gay.

They could give a damn about what a church says but the legal benefits can be a matter of life and death.

what an asinine, homophobic, ignorant remark.

"what an asinine, homophobic, ignorant remark."

Homophobic.

I see that word used a lot. Could you please explain what it is about the above comment that makes it 'homophobic'?

if you would really think about it and really observe it seems like the gay movement LEARNED A LOT FROM HITLER the way they navigate thier cause around other people..

Godsnliberals = scum.

only one side is enforcing its morals/religion on the other.

Agreed........

nobody is enforcing shit on anybody..I dont understand why..homosexuals tend to squeeze themselves to be accepted by these religious groups???????????????????

why?????? get your own group and live accordingly..

I guarantee you don't have the facts to support of you ever say, Godsorliberals...

I dont understand this...if you love each other so much THEY NEED A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY to confirm that love?? insecurity??

nobody is asking a homosexual to abide to these morals..its been said over and over again..homosexuals ARE NOT WANTED..now why would you force youself on that??????????/

live your life without them..you do not need them..

godsnliberals,

homosexuals are not wanted?

by whom?

you?

judging by the lack of any type of rational thought in your comment, i'm smellin troll breath.

oh yeah, and its not about insecurity in their relationship, its about insecurity in their LEGAL rights to share LEGAL responsibility with one another, as in dying rights, inheritances, etc.

FallenMorgan:

Very good point (made in your second paragraph)! Soooooo true...

We're not asking that you do-- just give us the rights. We'll take the responsibilities. And I doubt any of it will impact your life in any meaningful way.

It's like divorced people getting remarried: the Catholic Church won't/doesn't recognize it (or even perform it, for that matter), and no one's forcing them to.

Opinions are personal. Rights are universal.

It is not about equal rights- that's a red herring. It is about changing the cultural definition of marriage- the union of 1 man and 1 woman- a definition that crosses religious, cultural, and geographical boundaries. But you are saying- "screw them, who gives a damn about their culture, their religion, their values- we'll tell them they have to believe what we believe." Its also "about using the police power of the State to give the same legal status as a marriage to homosexual paramours and force the entire society to recognize their relationship as equivalent to a marriage". (Keith Fournier). Yep- using force- sounds like fascism to me.

unclecharlie is correct.

If what the gays wanted were simply rights that are effectively the same as conventional marriage and nothing more, their fight would be more easily won than the fight they are engaged in which is one of a semantic nature.

People pick their own battles. The gays have chosen one that goes much beyond equal rights and which has passionate opposition that is going to fight very hard to maintain a definition of "marriage" that is very dear to them.

mojojuju and unclecharlie don't like gay people, plain and simple.

the end. keep up with the bigotry and falsehoods!

"mojojuju and unclecharlie don't like gay people, plain and simple.

the end. keep up with the bigotry and falsehoods!"

Now why do you say that? The statement you have made in regards to me is completely false.
And it's kind of odd that you would say that. To say that I don't like gay people because I am opposed to changing the legal definition of marriage is kind of like saying that I don't like skate boards because I don't support changing the legal definition of "automobile" to include skate boards.

In other words, the attitude which you attribute to me for the reason you did is kind of ridiculous.

I would like to direct both Charlie and Mojojuju to my previous response to Charlie.

My overall response to the "you are insulting my culture" argument is probably my most shaky.

I want marriage, as defined by the federal government, to apply to my life partner. I want the rights an associations given to me by that. Ultimately, that's what I want, and it's ultimately what I deserve.

Civil Unions, with the same rights, are a step in the right direction. But it is, unfortunately, separate but equal. Straights get this, gay get this other thing.

Even if they are exactly the same, society is still telling me I am inferior. I am different, and cannot fundamentally be part of the culture because of my sexuality. (Another argument: I didn't choose to be gay, therefore, I should not be discriminated against because of it. Ex: I was born to an enthnically Mexican family, I should not have different rights because I am Mexican.)

I am not asking to be married in a church. There are churches who would marry me, but this argument is not about the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other kind of marriage. It is about the legal process of binding two people together for the rest of their lives in a such a way that grants them rights over one another's property, future, and care. The concept of "marriage" (religious, ring exchange, dresses, tuxes, aisle walking, bells) can be totally removed from the government's definition of the word.

I'm saying give me the same rights, and don't call it something else. No one is going to force a church to marry gay people. Ex: The Catholic church isn't forced to marry people who are divorced, or Jewish couples, or Satanists. (all of which are, predictably, frowned upon by the Catholic Church.)

Besides, why would I want what should be one of the happiest days of my life to take place surrounded by people who hate me for who I am? Or at the very least, disapprove and misunderstand my "choice."

Again, I'd be happy to keep discussing this. I have to eat dinner, and go to work, so responses may not be timely, but I'm interested in hearing a well-thought out defense of your position(s).

Randall, I have a couple of friends who are gay. You seem woefully unable to seperate the homosexual fro their behavior. When you have friends, you like them, right? You like being around them, right? Of course. I am not a moral relativist- that is the difference between you and me. Don't automatically assume that I don't like gay people- what I don't like is homosexual activists who try to use the powers of the state to change the traditional definition of marriage, and indoctrinate school kids with the idea that heterosexual marriage is to be rejected.

unclecharlie,

"what I don't like is homosexual activists who try to [...] indoctrinate school kids with the idea that heterosexual marriage is to be rejected."

what the hell are you talking about? who or what activist is teaching kids to reject heterosexual marriage?

i thought i'd heard it all, but this takes the cake.

nobody, gay or gay-friendly, is trying to affect the status or legal right of heterosexual marriage. all we 'gay activists' want is the same LEGAL rights as our heterosexual counterparts.

i dont care whether you do or you dont.. what i do care about is how my secular government treats me. and that is the issue, you think that your opinion has to matter for everyone. but you keep enforcing your definition of morals, religion, institutions and marriage upon everyone else.

oh and in case everyone didnt know the Bible has developed and changed over the years, with different versions and editions..just like a wikipedia entry.. so your religious gudiance may just be the product of some old white heterosexual dude's own bigotry and bias. just sayin'

Good for you. Its not for you to decide.

mlamb88, there are operating costs in government regardless of this lawsuit. your logic is flawed. lawsuits are a business. business IS money. alllllllllll of the people involved will be receiving pay checks (which will stimulate the economy).

and why should JUSTICE be postponed just because of a recession, anyway? nice thinking, but try again.

Do you actually think a bunch of liberals care about how much the federal government spends?

Us "homosexual activists" are trying to override democracy because even democracy can subvert rights that should be enjoyed by everyone--including the right to get married to the person we love, regardless of gender or sex.

It's the same as the legality of blacks marrying whites or vice versa. Just because the majority says its so, doesn't mean it's right, especially when the government is actively infringing upon my right to enter into legal contracts, which is what the government considers marriage to be in the first place.

unclecharlie asks, "Why are homosexual activists trying like hell to override the democratic process?"

You must not understand fairness. Voting on the rights of a minority = tyranny by majority. How many times do your arguments have to be successfully countered before you actually listen?

The answer: You refuse to listen.

When blacks wanted to marry whites, the MAJORITY would've said no. When slaves wanted freedom, the MAJORITY (in many states) would have said no. When King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the MAJORITY (and the political Catholic Church) said no.

You, along with any of those who vote against Gay Marriage and continue to try to prevent it, will be seen on the wrong side of History.

Those who don't like Gay Marriage don't have to get one, but it's on its way whether the MAJORITY wants it or not.

So shove it.

Well, Randall, trying to redefine the cultural definition of marriage is not the same thing as seeking equal rights. I quote Keith Fornier, " The reason that marriage and the family founded upon it has become the foundation of civil societies across ethnic, geographical, religious and racial communities is because it is ian institution revealed by Natural Law." (from "Should Disordered Appetites Be Civil Rights?") Yep- across ALL cultures, ethnicities, continents and religions. Got that? But moral relativists like you choose to shut your eyes, and subvert the democratic process for your own nefarious ends. The People of California spoke. Live with it. What the gay activists did in California re: Prop. 8 sounds to me like the Gay Gestapo. "So shove it" ? That sounds to me like you have no use for respectful dialogue. Why? Perhaps you realize the foundation of sand your argument is built on.

Regardless of your feelings on the issue of gay marriage--this is Massachusetts, not California, and they aren't overturning something that was voted in by voters. This is about whether or not Congress overstepped it's bounds with the Defense of Marriage Act.

The point they're making is actually quite similar to an argument made by opponents of gay marriage; namely, that the right to determine marriage laws is granted to the states and that DOMA oversteps those bounds.

I'm actually not wild about this, because following this logic, one could also argue that the federal government could not rule that everyone deserves equal rights to marriage, and that it's perfectly fine for states to deny those rights. But maybe there are some legal nuances I'm missing.

unclecharlie, you have no place critizing others for refusing to be respectful to you when you show little to no respect to them. seriously, quoting an article called "Should Disordered Appetites Be Civil Rights?" and having the nerve to cal, others disrespectful? and everyone with a brain knows Keith Fournier is a discredited crock of sh** who had his degrees yanked. so in conclusion speak to others how you want to be spoken to and cite a person who hasn't been disproven and discredited by the vast majority of the scientific community.

"Well, Randall, trying to redefine the cultural definition of marriage is not the same thing as seeking equal rights."

I would entirely agree. I am not asking you in any way, shape, or form to alter your opinions. I am merely asking that when I get hit by a car, my (husband, parter, boyfriend, significant other, whatever the hell you want to call it) is able to visit me as I die. That when I get health insurance through a company, he's also covered. I want to be able to own a house with my partner without paying hours and hours of legal fees.

"I quote Keith Fornier, " The reason that marriage and the family founded upon it has become the foundation of civil societies across ethnic, geographical, religious and racial communities is because it is ian institution revealed by Natural Law." (from "Should Disordered Appetites Be Civil Rights?") Yep- across ALL cultures, ethnicities, continents and religions. Got that?"

Slavery was pretty common too, and almost universally practiced. As was despotism, religious enforcement by the state, and a whole bunch of other things we don't really think are ok.

Besides, "marriage" as you put it is nowhere near as universal as you say it is. Yes, in many cultures, the biological impulses of the man/woman reproductive unit carried through into societal and social norms. However, in many cultures (Papua New Guinea tribes, as an example) other forms of marriage were performed. What about group marriages? What about societies with no legal basis for marriage? Nero married his slave boy; extreme fundamentalists of many religions take multiple wives.

Are you postulating that without your traditional definition of marriage, society would collapse? Are you really dismissing all forms of the family? What about single parents? What about children with two sets of parents? Moving away from a family with children, are you saying that I have to be with a woman in order for the entirety of society to be stable?

"But moral relativists like you choose to shut your eyes, and subvert the democratic process for your own nefarious ends. The People of California spoke. Live with it. What the gay activists did in California re: Prop. 8 sounds to me like the Gay Gestapo."

The Gay Gestapo honestly makes me laugh. It's really just funny.

I happen to not really be that morally relative. Societies that give people their inalienable rights are fundamentally better that those that do not. Ex: The United States' culture is better than Saudi Arabia's in the context that Saudi Arabia severely limits the rights of its female citizens.

The democratic process isn't some high ideal to be upheld. It's not all that good, especially when you get into representative democracy. It is however, wayyyyy less terrible than any other form of government we've come up with so far. The United States was founded on people have inalienable rights (and even if it wasn't founded on that, it's certainly moved to that position) first and democracy second. If you were white, and you lived in a majority black nations, and they voted to take away (scratch that, you didn't even have and they explicitly forbid you ever having) your right to marry, that wouldn't be fair, would it? Democratic, but unfair, and a bad infringement of your rights.

"So shove it" ? That sounds to me like you have no use for respectful dialogue. Why? Perhaps you realize the foundation of sand your argument is built on."

I have answered all of your points here with respect. I find it difficult, especially because I have yet to be convinced of any points brought up against gay marriage, but I have done it. I don't know if your remarks (EX: "Got that?") were in retaliation to the lack of respect shown by Randall, or merely the passion in your argument coming to the surface, but I found the overall tone of YOUR argument to be equally as demeaning and condescending.

I honestly do not believe my arguments are unfounded. I would be happy ton continue this debate either here, or at a different venue.

Well, grinningsatyr, this debate has runs its course. I am debating this from a Christian worldview, you are debating it from an Atheistic worldview, and trying to find common ground here just isn't going to happen. Lets be realistic- you will never convince me that your argument is correct, and I will never convince you that my argument is correct. This one's a dead horse- at least we can take turns burying it, eh?

First of all, I'm a conservative, or maybe a little libertarian. So I'm not saying this as a Liberal. But I don't think the government has any business defining marriage.

"Marriage" is different from a "civil union".

Marriage is a religious pact between two people, their community, and God. It was developed by civilizations as a way of protecting the woman, who bears the inordinate responsibility of raising the children (at least until our society made it fashionable to murder the fetus, but that's a different topic). As such, divorce was considered to be breaking that promise, to the spouse, the community, the society, and God. For this reason, I believe that "Marriage" should be left to be defined by each church and community. The federal government has NO business defining Marriage because it inevitably must pick and choose one religious definition and force that upon the society. Not only does it do this to gays, but also to Mormons, Muslims, and others whose religion tells them they can have multiple wives (or, more rarely, multiple husbands).

I'll go out on a limb: if a church says they would marry two women or two men, or a man and 13 wives, that's up to that church and community. The government needs to keep its goddamn nose out of it.

HOWEVER: when it comes to "Civil Unions", this is entirely within the scope of the government's domain, because it is a LEGAL definition and has implications for taxes, benefits, etc. The government already allows for civil unions among homosexuals. That's fine. So the government has the right to say: "We will recognize a civil union between two consenting adults."

I think both the gay rights groups AND the government are wrong on this. Gays should get equal protection under the civil union definition, but should leave "Marriage" to the churches. And the government needs to stop defining "Marriage" on all counts. That also means that it must remove the federal laws that prohibit polygamy.

Just my humble (laugh) opinion.

Your quotes are absurd. As if your religion is the basis for all reality. Your assumption that your fundementalist christian views are the correct and only correct views and then backing them up with quotes from others with the same narrow vision makes me wonder if you grew up in america, the melting pot, where all religion is tolerated and not required. That is what truly makes America free, Not one group that mis-interpretes the bible and then tries to undermine our core values which are " freedom and equality for all". I wonder if Jesus would agree with repression of a minority group.?. maybe you can find that somewhere in the bible.