Bottomline, marriage is a contract and the future/propagation of society is a govt concern. Since we-the-people are the govt, the govt has to reflect the majority in a federated govt system, as opposed to democratic system. So yes, sometimes we make mistakes, but compared to the democratic system, we correct course much quicker. Nevertheless, gay marriage is not the same thing as multi-racial marriage, and we are perfectly right to frown on deviant behavior.

My Dad & Mom were married in 1960 and whenever she came to visit the folks in Birmingham area, she had to dress up in a burka to hide her lily white skin for much of the 60′s – not so much from the law but from good ole white boy Dems and their ropes.

On the other hand, knowing what I know now, I’m fortunate that I didn’t get picked off for roaming/playing all over Fairfield, AL as a 6-year old with blond hair and lite-complected natural tan.

Don’t recall any epithets down there, but jump forward to primary school in Detroit and I caught nigger/honky depending on who hurled it in the 60s/70s and half-breed in the 70s/80s.

Not to mention whenever I travelled with Dad thruout the 60s, he would sometimes get pulled over for having a ‘white child’ with him by cops.

For those who persist in keeping racism alive $ well and the cult of victimology, yawn. Tell me something new. Being black ain’t half as hard as being a mulatto

On the other hand, Muslims have no compunctions about killing their apostate daugthers for marrying outside the religion while guys can marry or rape whomever they please. Which is the greater injustice?

Now that gay couples have the legal right to be married in Massachusetts, they’re expected to to keep health benefits for their live-in partners, partner.

Boston Globe “Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered so-called domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays and lesbians can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples.”

This makes sense as a general principal, but it may be premature, until DOMA is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Same Sex Civil Marriage in Massachusettes simply does not carry the same weight as Civil Marriage for different sex couples. There are over a thousand federally mandated rights, privilages, benefits, and obligations that simply do not apply to same sex couples, even if they are recognized as married in their own state.

Certainly, I never would have married my wife had not Loving v Virginia been decided as it was in 1967, and if, as a result, the federal government agencies refused to recognise our marriage.

For some couples, the positive aspects of having a state recognize their marriage are outweighed by the negative aspects of having the federal government not recognize their marriage, and they ought not be penalized further because of such discrimination.

ricardomath

Based on this comment, Jamie, I have a suspicion you’re quite young. Take some advice from someone who’s been doing this for a long time. Making negative personal comments about someone you disagree with and projecting your own frustrations on them is not how you argue your point. Keep me and what you think my motives and thoughts are out of it.

First of all, calm down and read more carefully. You completely misunderstood the sentence you quoted. I meant that people can do whatever they want behind closed doors with whoever they want as long as the person they’re doing it with isn’t a child. In your rush to throw out what you probably consider a clever zinger, you not only misread my post, you reveal sloppy thinking in the process. If you believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, tell us why.

And this sentence reeks of the mental processes of a teenager or very young adult: Right, because we all know that the children of gay parents turn out gay themselves, and straight parents never raise gay children.

This is what’s known as a straw man argument. You set up a premise that no one on this board even mentioned, then you knock it down yourself. The post isn’t even about homosexual adoption. If you want to drag in new subject matter, address the matter at hand first. Time is fleeting, in case you hadn’t notice, so sticking to the point is very important.

Also juvenile: But then conservatives are no strangers to hypocrisy. This reminds of myself when I was a loud teenager spouting off at the mouth every chance I got. Bad form. First of all, hypocrisy is a human trait, and none of us is a stranger to it. So what’s your point? That conservatives claim not to be hypocrites? Where do you read this in my post or in the comments?

And the sarcastic “Bravo to you” irritates me to no end. Jamie, do me a favor. Read my archives before you comment on this blog again. More importantly, read my comment policy before you attempt to comment further. You’re not getting back on this board until you do:

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/07/policy/

Right, because we all know that the children of gay parents turn out gay themselves, and straight parents never raise gay children. Also, how can gays “possess all the guarantees of liberty” if they aren’t allowed to marry? And shouldn’t the decision be left to the church and NOT the government, an entity that is deemed “too meddlesome” by your kind anyway? But then conservatives are no strangers to hypocrisy.

I would point that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-adjusted kids growing up with same-sex parents across the country, or that there are sane, loving homosexual couples who’d love to adopt but aren’t able to because of people like you, but that wouldn’t matter would it? You can’t see anything but your righteous indignation. Too bad it hasn’t led you to the local orphanage, though.

Like Ricardomath pointed out, our government used the same tricks to prevent interracial marriage. Now, half a century later, you’re ardently supporting them. Bravo to you. I’ll stop in the middle of my fiddling and tip my hat to you while Rome burns.

For one thing race is really non-existant since Biblically speaking, all humans are descended from Noah and again from Adam & Eve. Secondly, homosexuality has generally been taboo as a marriage thang, even if permissible in various cultures.

One of the regulars here, Renee, provided a link to a Dennis Prager article on civilization & homosexuality. Regardless of your background, I highly recommend it. Cheers.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml

Due to a decision of some “activist judges” on the US Supreme Court in 1967, our marriage is legal today in each one of those 50 states, all across the nation, and is even recognized by the Federal Government. Had it not been for that decision by those judges, we would not even have the right to live together today, much less be married.

We would be hypocrites to oppose for same sex couples something that has brought the two of us such happiness.

ricardomath

I often ask why the Black civil rights movement is used instead of past feminist movements, or past religious freedom movements. The feminist movement was about gender, and homosexuality has more to do with gender than any other characteric, and like gender is independent of your parentage (meaning gays mostly don’t have gay parents, nor do they have gay children). It’s about a lifestyle choice, which could be more akin to practicing religious freedom than just existing as a person of a certain race. They really know why, and the answer is too cynical to say out loud. It’s easy to invoke, and it unfortunately, shuts too many progressives on my side up about their real feelings. It’s pure laziness, and they put down Blacks that don’t want our painful struggle used as a stepping stone, or have its meaning cheapend for when the next struggle comes and it’s not going to be about love and certificates, but about human rights, food, shelter, and medicine.

Additionally, I don’t like the idea of children having to “decide” what they are at younger and younger ages. With gay marriage normalized, it will force every adolescent to confront his/her feelings when at that time they should be abstinent, watching cartoons, and riding bikes. I don’t think any child who is confused about his/her sexuality should even have to really have to start feeling pressured to think about it until well after high school. I’m afraid they will begin confusing their comfort with the same sex, which is natural, with homosexuality.

By making it legal, the state is forcing me to accept it as normal. (and I think they know this and THAT is the whole point of why they are pursuing this agenda) Thus, I would have to relate to “married” gay couples the same as married straight couples in any legal setting. In addition, our children will be surrounded by a “plausibility structure” that legitimizes gay marriage as normal (for the implications of plausibility structures see Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality). Since my religious and philosophical beliefs are strongly opposed to recognizing gay behavior and “marriage” as normal, the coercive power of the state would be brought to bear to force me to assent to and act in accordance with priniciples that violate my beliefs and conscience. This is a direct assault on my rights to freedom of religion and thought. And I don’t imagine that they will stop until my freedom of speech is throttled as well.

It will also, of course, contribute to the further destruction of the meaning of marriage altogether – though this will take time – and that will damage us all, especially the children.

“America progresses. Will you? ”
On what basis do you imagine that this is progress? It is, in fact, a regression to the cultural decadence that was rampant in ancient Greece and Rome, before the ascendency of Christian theism – and we know what happened to the empires of Greece and Rome. In fact, this is more than a regression – even with the rampant homosexuality and pedophilia of the ancient world, they never dared to cross the line into the fiction that same sex couples could be legitimately married.