About The Author
-

19 Comments

Leave a Reply to bradlyboy24 Cancel reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Kyle Wagoner
    Reply

    I don't personally buy into marriage being the most important thing when it comes to raising a child "right". My parents were never married and were only together for the first 3 years of my life and have barely spoken back and forth since. That created complications but I feel that those complications would have only been further magnified if marriage had ever been a part of the picture. There are plenty of cases of kids being raised right and plenty of them being raised wrong in and out of marriages. It's all a very interpersonal thing in the end. I'd argue that making the decision to adopt shows a lot more innate devotion to wanting to raise children than examples of people of the opposite sex ending up with children by accident. I only see positives in allowing gay marriage. I think the only arguments against it are either based in a religiously-fueled disagreement with homosexual relationships in general or in the belief that a kid can only be raised correctly if there's a prominent man and woman in their life.

  • Micheal Dubh
    Reply

    Why are these people talking about "anthropological" history when they show a remarkable ignorance of that same history. Even Wikpedia provides an extensive list of same-sex marriages throughout history:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions; besides which, why did they insist that marriage has always been between a man and a woman when they should know very well many societies have allowed polygamous marriages between one man and several women (how many hundreds of wives did Solomon have?) and even between one woman and more than one man.

  • TheDavep2
    Reply

    We see that the anti-gay folk in these comments are still just spewing the same tired old rhetoric that has repeatedly been debunked in case after case after case as the irrational and unsupported nonsense that it is. All they have are tired old 'slippery slope' logic fallacies that fail to offer an argument on THIS issue, tired old 'appeal to tradition' logic fallacies that have never insulated a civil law from scrutiny for constitutional compliance, irrelevant negative comments about gay citizens which don't do anything to explain what valid beneficial purpose could possibly be served by these laws which do nothing but deny same sex couples access to the rights and protections of legal civil marriage, irrelevant references to religious beliefs as if they fail to understand the basic difference between a legal civil marriage and a symbolic religious wedding ceremony, and various other non-arguments that have all repeatedly failed to provide any explanation for how laws that deny civil marriage to same sex couples could possibly comply with the principles of the Constitution and be allowed to remain in effect. They have nothing.

  • Yvonne Hemlick
    Reply

    between one man and several women (big difference than man to man marriages you said it yourself Michael

  • Seamus Fitzsimmons
    Reply

    I am a gay male and an ordained Christian minister…The "Marriage" should be done on a civil union level first and IF the 2 individuals want to have their union blessed by a chuch then it can be done SEPARATELY by the church.

  • Daniel Murray
    Reply

    why do people get away with saying marriage is a right? why is is wrong to see things that are different as being different?

  • Jouster Zen
    Reply

    Bullshit. Ancient Rome, ancient Greece were gay all over the place. There are also some current hunter-gatherer societies that demonstrate same sex acts without discrimination. 10:30

  • Homophobic Atheist
    Reply

    The reason why gay marriage has never been a part of marriage institutions for thousands of years is because homosexuality is a high health risk and allowing gay marriage embraces that high health risk by default.

  • AZtrueflow18
    Reply

    i'm an ex homosexual, ive been set free by the casting out of the homosexual spirit. No one is really gay the voice in their mind and feelings in their body the spirit gives they believe to be themselves. You dont have to hate yourself for its not you to begin with. Be set free

  • Rob Croley
    Reply

    14:15 Wait and See is what happened with Brown II, and look where that got us. The Roberts court is set to make the Plessy or Brown of their court history. What I've read in the comments is nothing more than a fundamental denial of giving rights to human beings who share the same citizenship as the rest of America based on the pretenses of religion and non-childbearing. Justice Kagan said in an earlier opinion would it not be the same if two people over the age of 55 were denied a marriage based on their inability to bear children and "contribute" to society?

  • bradlyboy24
    Reply

    Can Somebody please tell what law school the attorney for the state of Mi went because I want to make sure my kids don't go there a 12 yr old could argue against him. His basic argument is that allowing gays to marry says that there will be more kids born out of marriage because some how he thinks that allowing gay people to marry says that marriage isn't about kids first off marriage isn't only about having kids it is certainly a part of but not all secondly plenty of heterosexual couples get married and either choose not toor cant have kids and thirdly many gay couples have biologicalchildren. that guy is either insane or just plain ignorant

  • pqxxedf
    Reply

    Conventional marriage does not discriminate against individuals. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Doesn't matter how homosexual he or she is. Just because a person doesn't get the same pleasure from using a crosswalk doesn't mean we must sanction jaywalking.

    The reason conventional marriage is limited to two people is because two people is what it takes to create a child. No such thing occurs when two people of the same sex come together.Homosexuality is no different than masturbation except for the possibility of spreading AIDS. There's nothing special about a two-person homosexual relationship that separates it from masturbationexcept the fact it occurs between more than one person. But so does a three-person homosexual relationship.

    Biological parents almost always care about their children more than anybody else in the world.There are 74 million children in our country. We need to encourage conventional marriage, instead.Sanctioning same-sex marriage, further degrading conventional marriage, in order to take care of the relatively few orphans in our society is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will produce more orphans.

    The reason government likes same-sex marriage is because it furthers "marriage equality". Government wants to run everybody's families. It's doing so by forcing gender "equality" between men and women. Same-sex marriage does even more to promote chaos and invite government intervention in our most personal relationships. It's even easier to proclaim that the participants are "equal" when the relationship consists of only men or only women.

    It's an absurd argument and it's a shame that our Supreme Court is even entertaining it.

  • breedersare lame
    Reply

    "Gay people" would it be too hard to actually use correct English language and say homosexual? I for one don't think the SCOTUS is where you should use street language?

  • Rob Croley
    Reply

    21:58 No, Scalia, they aren't likely to change their minds about it. The South wasn't likely to change their minds about segregation either. The conservative wing of the court is obviously not taking into account the fact that, in 60 years, voting against this will be silly and downright bigoted in the eyes of a modern society. They are basing everything on context of what they think is right. That is not what the law states. And last I checked, the law of the land is the Constitution. The Constitution states in the 14th Amendment that State Governments shall not deny any people the rights of life, liberty and property. Liberty is a word that can be construed in many ways, and has been construed by the Court over the years. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his dissent in Lochner v New York, challenged justices to interpret it in a proper manner. The proper manner, in this instance, is the non-denial of the right for two people in a deeply committed relationship to marry. The 14th Amendment also has an incorporation clause, as put forth by the Warren Court, Hugo Black in particular. All parts of the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments with the exception of certain parts of the 8th and 6th apply as a result of this. For someone who considers himself such a strict textualist, he needs to get his head out of his rear-end and look at the plain words on paper.