If you’re heterosexual, that is.

Gay people do not want to limit the rights of hetersexuals, so why is it heterosexuals want to limit the rights of gays? Heterosexuals will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex if gay marriage is legalized. Churches which do not wish to perform gay weddings will not be forced to do so. So, truly, there is no effect, positive or negative, to heterosexuals when gay marriage is legalized.

So much money and so much time is being put forth by so many heterosexual/religious people in this country to prevent the gay population from marrying the one they love. Why? Instead of throwing away tens of millions of dollars on campaigns to make gay people second class citizens and not allow tax paying gay citizens of this country to enjoy equal rights, why not take that money and donate it to worthy causes, causes God and Jesus Christ would embrace? How about helping the poor? How about helping bail our country out of the mess its in? How about using that money to fix our schools and give our students the best education possible?

Why don’t we stop fighting over who is allowed to get married in this country and just realize that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to all of us, not just heterosexuals. This is the United States. Freedom and justice for all.

I challenge everyone posting comments to ask yourselves, “how am I truly affected by gay people getting married?” I think no one is truly affected by it. I think those who want to refuse equal rights to a fellow citizen of their country is unpatriotic at best, and at worst a bigot.

Let’s stop the hate. Let’s move forward with progress. Let’s quit wasting time trying to deny equal rights to each other.

“As intervenor in Smelt v. United States, the ADF is promoting the argument that there is a government interest in “responsible procreation.”

In a Monday filing, the Department of Justice took a swipe at that argument, saying: “… the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality”

Kevin…the entire basis of your arugment seems to be the ability to biologically reproduce. If that is really the basis of your argument then should any heterosexuals past child-bearing age or those simply physically incapable of producing children be allowed to marry? I mean these couples can’t reproduce therefore government has no vested interest in their relationship, right? Looking at this from another angle since producing children isn’t a product or even by-product of marriage why do you link the two in terms of civil law? And have you read or research the various civil laws related to marriage? Procreation is a minor theme at best when it comes to divorce and children. The majority of marriage laws are about money and property.

Homosexual behavior occurs in hundreds of species. Why do humans think this would be different for our species? Has anyone looked at the human population explosion on the planet? Maybe gay people are God/Nature’s answer to population control…you’ve got a whole group that won’t be popping out babies that are productive members of society and that will help raise children.

Why do some of you keep quoting the Bible when it comes to marriage? We have separation of church and state which means that basing laws on the text of any religious books is tantamount to breaking the establishment clause. This would be why you never, ever, ever find laws that refer to Bible verses or verses from any other text. If you don’t want same sex marriages in YOUR religion then have at! It’s your right to practice your religion as you see fit, but why do you believe that your religion should be the basis for civil laws? This is a slippery slope to be on because if another religion (Islam comes to mind) becomes the dominant religion would you want to have set the legal precedent to allow laws to be based on the Quran?

As far as your bible verses go, why don’t you go back and read Jesus words in John 8:3-11. Doesn’t sound like He was preaching hate or murder to me.

Stop blaming Christians.

Even baby killers?

I bet this azzclown supports abortion.

What is the States over riding interest in preventing marriage between two persons of the same sex? What does the State lose if two persons of the same sex are married?

What does “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” mean? What does ” equal protection” mean?
Does it mean all but some are equal before the law? Who decides who is not equal?

Just asking “Socratic” questions.

And I suspect these are the questions that will be before the court.

Although it has no influence or standing in the law, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence say “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”? I’d argue the first should include some guarantee of health care and the last should allow people to marry as they see fit. Just saying if we don’t hold these values in the highest regard, do away with it and start singing “God Save the Queen.”

Second DOMA was and clearly is still one of the most unconstitutional laws ever written. Article IV of the constitution states that all states must accept and recognize legal documents and decisions from other states. Although I am still single, my parents were married in Florida, and are still recognized as married in Georgia based upon that. I don’t have to get an Alabama driver’s license when I go visit Birmingham because my Georgia driver’s license is recognized there. In 2004, in a get out the vote for Bush effort, we the people of Georgia also violated that by not only banning something that was already illegal but writing in a ban of recognizing any sort of recognition from other states.

If someone really wants to protect the institution of marriage, the institution of divorce needs to be eliminated.

Just curious when did the Bible replace the Constitution as the basis for law in this country? I thought the laws of this country were supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. We have legislated so many moral issues that have no place in our legal system. Why can’t I legally shoot craps for money in this state if I so choose to do so? I am an adult, and if I choose to purchase an alcoholic beverage on Sunday, I should not be prohibited from doing so, and heck if I chose to visit a prostitute, why does the state try to protect me from my self? I can make these choices and know the consequences.

Finally, what place does the state have in regulating any sort of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual? It is, by tradition, a religious institution. I thought the state was supposed to stay out of church matters. If two individuals wish to enter into a contract to allow them to make power of attorney decisions for the other, deal with last requests, visitation when ill, etc, what power does the state have to say no you can’t do that because you are both of the same gender?