Same-Sex Spouses File Major Lawsuit In Massachusetts Challenging The Ban On Federal Benefits
Same-Sex Spouses File Major Lawsuit In Massachusetts Challenging The Ban On Federal Benefits
Today, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed the first concerted, multi-plaintiff legal challenge to Section 3 of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). GLAD is representing a group of LGBT plaintiffs who have been harmed by the federal refusal to recognize their marital rights. Under Section 3, legally married same-sex couples are excluded from any federal law or program that benefits other married individuals.
The consequence of Section 3 is that gays and lesbians have been denied spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and in the issuance of passports. In fact, there are 1,138 federal laws that confer rights and responsibilities based on marital status. In Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management — filed in federal District Court in Boston — the plaintiffs are arguing that Section 3 is unconstitutional on two grounds. From GLAD’s press release:
GLAD argues that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income tax, Social Security, federal employees and retirees, and in the issuance of pasasports. GLAD also contends that DOMA Section 3 is an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into marriage law, always considered the province of the states.
One of the plaintiffs in the case is Dean Hara, the surviving spouse of Gerry Studds, the late Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. Studds, the first openly gay congressman, married Hara in 2004, just one week after Massachusetts legalized marriage equality.
The federal government has denied Hara access to Studds’s congressional pension, health insurance, and other protections available to surviving spouses of federal employees. The only people who are ineligible for these benefits are same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, according to the Office of Personnel Management. If the federal government recognized the marriage, Hara would have been eligible for a lifetime annual pension of about $62,000, which would grow with inflation. Studds himself gave an impassioned speech against DOMA on July 11, 1996, specifically mentioning the potential harm of Section 3:
I have paid every single penny as much as every Member of this House has for that pension, but my partner, should he survive me, is not entitled to one penny. I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe most Americans think that is fair.
On Sunday, ThinkProgress interviewed Hara, who explained that he decided to join the lawsuit in February, coinciding with the trouble he was having getting benefits from the federal government:
This is, first of all, something — an issue I’ve been dealing with since shortly after Gerry’s passing in October 2006. … I only would want to be treated the same as any other surviving spouse of a public servant or a federal employee. … The basic principle is what fair is fair and discrimination is discrimination. If it happens to me it will happen to someone else, and I’m sure it is happening to other people.
President Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the repeal of DOMA. “In the past election, one of the main topics was about change,” said Hara. “I think one way of looking at it is it’s about change and accepting diversity, and I believe that I’m no different than anybody else. … I should get the same benefits as any other spouse of a federal employee for 27 years. I think our relationship may look different but it’s ultimately the same.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hara says:
I think one way of looking at it is it’s about change and accepting diversity, and I believe that I’m no different than anybody else. … I should get the same benefits as any other spouse of a federal employee for 27 years. I think our relationship may look different but it’s ultimately the same.”
Here here!
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 amWell said!
Sam-Sex Spouses
– - Isn’t that technically masturbation?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 amSTFU Daryll,
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 amand slide over here and give some faux brown suga luvin’!!!
Wow, two threads on gay rights this morning. Signs of the apocolypse to Daryll.
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 amAnd I agree, sweetie.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 amLet’s also take away benefits for those heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive, or who have chosen not to conceive.
Although, I’m pretty sure Wayne and Jane may not like your idea.
Daryll, is the ability to conceive the basis of your argument? Should infertile couples be denied benefits? Is there a means to test the entire population’s reproductive capability in order to award benefits?
FWIW, lesbian couples conceive all the time. Are you advocating benefits for lesbians only?
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 amSo – call me stupid – but, what exactly is Sam Sex?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pmChris LeJeune Says:
So – call me stupid – but, what exactly is Sam Sex?
Might be a reference to our mayor here in Portland.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 pmMy wife and I are unable to conceive. Should we be denied benefits, too, Daryll?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pmcRaptureReady, future Councilman of Whitley, Indiana says:
I agree.
Great! Let’s shower!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pmRR:
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pmSo you’re pro-benefits for lesbians who have children, like spencers mom asked?
Right after the Constitution says “the Bible is our rulebook” we’ll talk about it Daryll – and not until then.
If you want to be religious first, and American somewhere after that, move to a theocracy.
Otherwise, your views are nothing more than Anti-Americanism.
Traitorous and Treasonous. John Brown was hanged for it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pmRaptureReady Says:
When they are able to conceive, we will talk about benefits. Procreation benefits our nation. Until then, no.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
___________
How does procreation benefit our nation, exactly? Our urban and suburban centers are already too crowded as it is, and we consume far too many natural resources. Do explain how additional population growth benefits our country and our planet.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pmWell, we should all just agree with the people who believe in the Invisible Magical All Powerful Faerie in the sky that primitive Goat Herders made up….
…after all that makes so much sense…
…RupturedRectum…you are still delusional as ever, I see.
Discrimination is what most Religious types like, to them it is just fine if those people don’t believe as they do….which why they are sick in the head and morally corrupt.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmcRaptureReady, Future Councilboy of Whitley, In. says:
Certain benefits, yes. This is how we close our deficit. Since you do not have a child, your taxes should be increased.
You so cute when you are obviously so frustrated about showering with me, that it’s caused all you braincells to stop firing.
But forgive me, I may have forgotten. How many children do you and “Tiffany” have?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmRaptureReady Says:
Certain benefits, yes. This is how we close our deficit. Since you do not have a child, your taxes should be increased.
People who lose a child should also have their taxes increased, then?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmRR sez: This is how we close our deficit. Since you do not have a child, your taxes should be increased
Wait- I thought tax CUTS reduced the deficit… do tax increases only work on the childless?
Economics is way trickier than I thought, it’s too bad we have all those anti-discrimination laws otherwise RR and the lesbians with kids could SAVE the nation!!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 pmRaptureReady Says:
——————————————————————————–
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
RaptureReady Says:
——————————————————————————–
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
You possess the brilliance of a carrot ………
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pmLuis M Says:
People who lose a child should also have their taxes increased, then?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
_________
Absolutely. When RaptureReady’s child dies in a tragic accident, I’m sure he’ll be more than happy to lose those benefits, as he’ll no longer be a procreative member of society.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pmWell, let’s get down to details, Daryll. Which benefits should my wife and I be denied because we are childless, a circumstance that was not a choice on our part?
Presumably they should be the same benefits that gay couples are denied, right? I mean, if you’re going to be consistent…
(By the way, my taxes ARE increased, because we have no deductions beyond ourselves. If you meant any increase beyond that, well, then that’s more stupidity than I can deal with in a single sitting.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pmMCMetal says:
You possess the brilliance of a carrot ………
Although I think the carrot may be a bit offended.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 pmOh, Daryll… I think you’re going to have to deal with this.
I think belac just ruptured your very own space-time-reality continuum.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pmRaptureReady Says:
——————————————————————————–
If you are married, choosing not to raise a child is selfish. That child could be the next person to find a cure for AIDS.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
They could also be the next Hitler ………..Or a useless moronic asswipe like yourself.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pmMaybe RR wants to only allow breeders to be married to procreate to stem the tide of The Scary Mooslims who only want to destroy Our Way of Life.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pmI’m going to bookmark this page.
Daryll recognizes that tax cuts don’t mean more money going to the government.
If I didn’t know him, I’d think there may be some hope for him yet. But I know better.
Still, this is a remarkable post because Daryll reveals progressive values on two fronts:
one, higher taxes mean more revenue for the government
and
2) Daryll supports the same rights for gay couples as for the rest of us. If they’re childless, they get the same rights as childless heterosexual couples.
If they adopt (which Daryll seems to support), they should get the same rights as heterosexual couples with the same number of children.
Welcome to the Enlightenment, Daryll!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmRR sez:That child could be the next person to find a cure for AIDS.
That child will probably be raised by a loving homosexual couple and be driven to find a cure by witnessing first hand the destruction AIDS has wrought on his or her parent’s friends and family…
P.S. Thanks for finally admitting that Tax Hikes are the only real way to significantly increase Government revenue… but most Republicans only realize this AFTER their campaigns are over so you might wanna keep it on the down-low until that Whitey Council thing is in the bag…
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pmDaryll,
Matthew 25:45
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
RaptureReady Says: When they are able to conceive, we will talk about benefits. Procreation benefits our nation. Until then, no.
Does God deny His benefits to those who cannot conceive?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pmDid Jesus conceive?
PPS Daryll?
RR sez:That child could be the next person to find a cure for AIDS.
Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 pmThe article frequently talks about what is “fair” but that is inaccurate. Government and life are not fair, but they need to be just. What same sex married couples are currently experiencing is unjust.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pmRaptureReady Says:
Certain benefits, yes. This is how we close our deficit. Since you do not have a child, your taxes should be increased.
But don’t raise the taxes of those precious 2%ers!! Daryll worships the rich.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pmRaptureReady Says:
——————————————————————————–
Except homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. It confuses the child.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
In what way ? Love is love ; and a CHILD is incapable of understanding what sex is …….
It merely ‘confuses’ those who are mentally lacking …..In other words : Republicans.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pmRaptureReady Says:
Except homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. It confuses the child.
___________
Funny… I could have sworn the kids I’ve known that were raised in same-sex families were doing just fine.
Now, trying to convince small children that there’s some sort of mythical creature in the skies who bears a passing resemblance to Santa Claus and will reward or punish them due to their behavior down on earth… that strikes me as both confusing and cruel.
BTW, what exactly is Santa’s relationship to Jesus? Is he Jesus’ uncle? I mean, Santa comes around on jesus’ birthday… there must be some relatiosnhip there, no?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pmPoint one — homosexual parents are not the only ones who can “confuse” a child. Obviously your parents confused you.
Point two — this means that if a lesbian conceives and has a child, she and her partner should receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.
Likewise gay married couples, if one of them should father a child.
very broad-minded of you, Daryll.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pmExcept homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. It confuses the child.
No, it doesn’t. There is nothing to support such a claim. It is MUCH more likely that the Christian Pharisees’ mixed message of love thy neighbor but oppress those who don’t believe as we do IS confusing to children.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pmMan, the stupidity of RupturedRectum is mind blowing….what an absolutely immoral, sick, phuck.
Too bad there is no hell, for he would surely burn forever.
I just hope his neighbors keep trashing his lawn…giving him the message to get the phuck out.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pmDaryll?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 pmSweetie.
Please answer the question.
How many children do you and your wife have?
RaptureReady Says:
Are you kidding? A personal tax cut is less money going back to the Government. If you are infertile, adopt. If you choose not to, pay the tax rate of a single person. If you are married, choosing not to raise a child is selfish. That child could be the next person to find a cure for AIDS.
___________
Good Lord… talk about idiotic values.
Hafta go… keep playing volleyball w/ RR’s head, folks.
Seeing it’s full of hot air, and nothing but… it actually works pretty well.
BTW… “Malik” links to a site that calls TP “Think Propaganda”, so feel free to deal w/ him accordingly.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmSo — according to RR — if homosexuals do not have children, their taxes should be increased and no marriage-like benefits (…ummm… RR, you DO understand that there are a few more benefits than a tax break for married couples, right? I know you’re a LIV and all, but really…).
If a heterosexual couple do not have children, they should have their taxes increased (would they also lose all other marriage benefits, like homosexuals?).
If a homosexual or heterosexual couple adopts, then they should receive marriage benefits — BUT it should be illegal for homosexual couples to adopt.
This still does not address RR’s thoughts on a lesbian couple who have a child (or more) naturally (and, yes, it happens all the time). What about them? They are homosexual and have a child, but did not adopt. Or should it be illegal for a lesbian to bear a child?
Just trying to get this straight.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmDaryll, you are searching to justify your prejudice. I have never had to counsel a child being raised by gay parents. I have counseled many children with heterosexual parents.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmDaryll, who are you going to blame if your child turns out to be gay? Will you abandon your child if s/he is gay? Will you deny him or her the benefits you would give to a straight child?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pmRaptureReady Says:
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
___________
Ye Gods… it’s… it’s… a Miracle…
An inflatable doll has gotten pregnant.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
RaptureReady Says:
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
___________
Ye Gods… it’s… it’s… a Miracle…
An inflatable doll has gotten pregnant.
RR is Old Testament — he has 3 inflatable dolls.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pmCageyCretin Says: Just trying to get this straight.
Hint: it take circular reasoning.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pmRaptureReady Says:
——————————————————————————–
#
DRxJ Says:
Daryll?
Sweetie.
Please answer the question.
How many children do you and your wife have?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Know what the sex of the child is , yet ?
Is it a lesbian ……….?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pmcRaptureReady says:
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
Awesome Daryll. I look forward to reading about your newborn in the Whitley birth announcements, you cutie you.
But, why would you want to bring a child into this world if you’re so Rapture Ready?
Sweetie?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pmDaryll, you announce the upcoming “blessed event” weeks ago. So how is your wife just one month pregnant?
Daryll, I was infertile but did adopt but am single and am not gay. Which of your boxes do I neatly fit into?
It really must be hard to compartmentalize people when we all remain so vastly different.
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 pmReputuredRectum says:
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
But who’s the father?
Certainly not you, you don’t have balls….
….maybe the neighbor who trashed your yard.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 pmBuckie Boy says:
Certainly not you, you don’t have balls….
….maybe the neighbor who trashed your yard.
Zooey has balls?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pmDaryll, you are saying that couples with children should pay less taxes. Why? These families use more community resources, such as schools, libraries, parks, pools. Shouldn’t they pay their fair share?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pmif ruptured rectum’s wife is pregnant, there is only 2 possibilities.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm1) she went to a sperm bank or…..
2) someone got in there ahead of Daryll
And just how, Darlyy, do you know you’re the father?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pmPoor Tiffany will wind up being linke Bonnie on Family Guy – a ficticious character in a “show”, pregnant for 7 years.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pmRaptureReady Says:
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
Hmm. She was “almost a month into pregnancy” a month or two back, Daryll.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pmgummitch, I said the same thing. Daryll announced the “blessed event” weeks ago.
I suspect the veracity of the pregnancy as much as the veracity of Daryll’s claims to be African American. Doesn’t matter to me one way or the other, but false witness anyone?
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
RaptureReady Says:
She is almost a month into pregnancy.
Consider a period happens once a month, that’s the DUMBEST THING you’ve POSTED
Especially given the fact that length of pregnancy is calculated from the LMP (last menstral period) so to be “almost a month into pregnancy” means the conception occurred within the last two weeks. And we all know Daryll announced the “blessed event” weeks ago. Pants on fire, Daryll?
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pmWell, looks like RupturedRectum was caught in a lie, again…so he most likely bailed out.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pmDaryll?
Sweetie.
It appears you’ve been caught “bearing false witness” about several things in today’s thread.
You seem a little tense.
May I suggest:
Back rub?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pmBody massage?
Skinny dip in Lake Michigan with the Polar Bear Club?
My Dad, a retired Judge, said this type of case is what will bring equal rights to all Americans — finally. It will likely have to go to the SCOTUS, and they will have to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs because of the equal protection rights in the 14th Amendment.
Equal rights for all Americans is on the horizon, and it’s about damn time.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pmRaptureReady Says: Also, I am only happy because my wife is with child. (2 ½ weeks) February 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Stored away in my little document entitled “Lord Daryll”, containing many bits and pieces that I have begun to save recently for use as needed. I warned him to look over his shoulder. Others own their own trolls.
I own Daryll/RaptureReady/RepublicanCouncilMan.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 pmAfter this spanking, it will be interesting to see if Daryll comes back to TP still using RaptureReady as his name.
Because I know I sure won’t forget this thread…
I think the liberal use of the word “lesbian” took Daryll off his game.
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 pmYAY PLC! I knew someone was keeping track! Poor Daryll – bearing false witness is one of God’s Top Ten.
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pmSo Daryll just got pwned?
What? No shower now, sweetie?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pmZooey Says:
————————————————————–
My Dad, a retired Judge, said this type of case is what will bring equal rights to all Americans — finally. It will likely have to go to the SCOTUS, and they will have to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs because of the equal protection rights in the 14th Amendment.
I really hope you’re right Zooey, but I am unsure. There’s something that hasn’t been mentioned here Gerry Studds and Dean Hara were legally married in MA. A major part of the arguement is that this is a states rights issue. So, although this will be a win in MA, my partner and I live in a state (LA) that has a constitutional ban on gay marriage and a Governor that has defined a family as a man and a women married to each other with child(ren) and marriage as a man and a woman only no other options (yet ANOTHER thing to thank Gov. Jindal for). I will celebrate when these couples win this suit, but I think a lot of us will have a very long road ahead of us still.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pmYes V, it’s a very long road, but it will happen.
The Civil Rights movement has taken a long time, and the Gay Civil Rights movement will be the same.
It won’t be easy, but it’s well worth doing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pmRapture Ready…
Does your increase the tax on couples unable to conceive apply to the top 1%? Because heaven knows one cent increased in their taxes will cause the Apocalypse…
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pmbarack obomber Says:
fags, butt slammers, homos just give up and do not get married.
Why don’t you just give up and leave this country, since you’re so damn un-American? Oh why don’t you just give up and DON’T HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE…
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pmPlain simple as that, 81…unless you fear getting TEH GAY VIRUS…I hear it can turn you into a mindless, sex-crazed zombie…way to stumble upon TEH HOMO AGENDA’s insidious plot…
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm(yawn)
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pmWhen one has to resort to middle school profanity, one has surely lost the battle.
I flagged the idiot just because I don’t want the thread stinking up an otherwise coup de grace on Daryll!
84. Kind of shows you that gay-bashing and tax cuts is all the GOP has left…very proud indeed 81 must be…
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pmah Barack Obomber.
I think about all those crazy old racists in the South, muttering incoherently to themselves about the good ol’ days.
At what point do you realize that you are pathetic and irrelevant in the face of progress?
Same-sex marriage is already here. In fact, more and more people are standing up to fight for it everyday.
Wish I could see your pathetic ass when you realize it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pmRealness Says:
ah Barack Obomber.
I think about all those crazy old racists in the South, muttering incoherently to themselves about the good ol’ days.
At what point do you realize that you are pathetic and irrelevant in the face of progress?
Same-sex marriage is already here. In fact, more and more people are standing up to fight for it everyday.
Wish I could see your pathetic ass when you realize it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
….irrelevant in the face of progress?
So-called same-same gender marriage, so-called, is progress? That might be a belief, but it’s certainly not a fact. Either way, it’s one big unconfirmed assumption.
So, what’s the authority for this assertion?
Same-sex marriage is already here. In fact, more and more people are standing up to fight for it everyday.
Same-same gender marriage, so-called, will never be here. Homosexuality is immoral, and you certainly don’t want bit citing scripture references to establish the authority for this assertion. Marriage is, and will continue to be, a relationship between a man and a woman.
There’s not a court in the world powerful enough to change that.
Of course, polyamorous and incestuous behavior, as well as homosexuality, are immoral. Recognizing that these sexual behaviors are immoral only makes bit observant, nothing more.
Please cite some authority for asserting the inevitability of same-same gender marriage, so-called. bit will ignore anecdotal stories about the sexual behavior of penguins justifying behavior that makes the U.S. not worth preserving.
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271
“There is no research proving that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race or biological sex: none.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pmyou certainly don’t want bit citing scripture references to establish the authority for this assertion.
by your reasoning, then since there is Scriptural basis for war crimes towards a conquered people, then they must be legitimate…
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pmFunny when the wing-nuts resort to science.
How’s that rainbow thing going, Rapture? Got it back yet?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pmbit sez:“There is no research proving that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race or biological sex: none.”
Proving it? That’s a tall order, but there is plenty suggesting it is…http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
Also genetically ‘race’ does not exist… it is a social construct based on skin pigmentation and other differences that make about as much difference genetically as a Star painted on the Belly of a Sneech…
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pmbit shows up late, to assert bit’s own morality as universal, and to demand a citation of “authority” for the obvious opinion that “same-sex gender marriage so-called” in inevitable.
bit’s fatuous demand for another poster to “cite some authority” reveals the bankruptcy of bit’s argument so-called.
bit is more than welcome to cite Scripture to “establish the authority” for bit’s assertion that homosexuality is immoral. Those TPers who recognize Scripture as authority are well-practiced in eviscerating bit’s so-called arguments so-called in the past. Those who see Scripture as simply a series of myths collected as a means of giving twelve wandering tribes a common cultural touchstone and so strengthen the bond between them, will find bit’s so-called arguments so-called easy to dismiss on that basis.
In ralph’s experience, bit has never come up with any sound reasoning for his assertion that homosexuality is immoral.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pmTrajan75 IQ Says: Are you going to have him stuffed and mounted?
What? I thought he was already!
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pmPLC vividly recalls that bitblt admitted that he wants the United States of America to base its laws governing marriage solely on his interpretation of Judeo-Christian Scripture.
Therefore, PLC has concluded that any further discussion with bitblt on his opinion or “facts” would be a monumental waste of time.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm88
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pmCareful there folks are gonna start thinking your me or I’m you or some such thing.
Anyway…
Hi bit
Now Daryll does realize that babies get cold when flying through the air right? I wonder if babies are allowed to nurse as they ascend? I still think it is sort of shitty of god to not provide a little airline bag of pretzels or god forbid peanuts. I suppose I can live with the ban on cameras but still how does a little snacky harm the big event.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 pmHere’s evidence of the inevitability of same-sex marriage:
14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1:
Simple as that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pmI thought the same thing, dbadass.
Oh, and… hi bit.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pmBit is one of many unfortunate Americans whom my grandfather describes well, a wise man of almost 90 years; “Many folks like to try and read the bible, as if it were written 200 years ago, in English.”
Bit, the bible is an edited, incomplete, many times re-translated volume. To attempt to read it in a literal sense, is, to put it bluntly, foolhardy.
Far too many out there seem to wish to be told what to believe, and what to think. Many “Christians” have never read their own holy scripture, relying entirely on what their Sunday preacher regurgitates and interprets to be “The Truth.”
Blind faith is not simply foolhardy, it’s dangerous. Those who have blind faith can be conditioned to do almost anything, look at suicide bombers for a great example of that.
The bible, at best, is something to be interpreted. Not separated into individual passages, not to be taken literally, and certainly not to be used as means of coming up with just laws.
Bit, you claim that homosexuality is immoral, I challenge you to give me some solid, logic based, non religious reasons for this opinion. Tell me, who is tangibly harmed, (I will not accept an abstract such as “Society” or “Children”, as there is no way to prove these sorts of claims.) what, specifically, is immoral about being gay? Oh, and please cite your sources as well. I will not accept biased ones.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pmjeez, i leave for a late lunch, and all hell breaks loose. I think it’s that creepy 3rd person thing bitbelt does.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 pmWe waited until you were gone, and then we unleashed… THE CANARY! *gasp* it’s eeeevil….. ;)
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmI am still concerned that a partially eaten lunchtime classic is so consumed by a book
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pmThe view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact.
Holding moral views doesn’t make one a bigot.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 pmbitblt Says:
Holding moral views doesn’t make one a bigot.
True. But demanding and arranging laws to insure that others must follow your specific moral code based strictly on a religious belief definitely is bigotry.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 pmAnd I am just wasting some time.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pmZooey Says:
Here’s evidence of the inevitability of same-sex marriage:
14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Simple as that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
When was it discovered that his amendment applied to same-same gender marriage(SSGM), so called? Was it about the same time that it was discovered that there was a “right to privacy” that allowed a woman to destroy her unborn child and call it an expression of freedom?
Whoever called abortion and homosexuality the culture of death was spot on!
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pmRight, because the religious icon of man dying by an archaic form of death penalty is the ‘culture of life.’ Oh and how many people have died throughout history in the good Lord’s name?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
bitblt Says:
Holding moral views doesn’t make one a bigot.
True. But demanding and arranging laws to insure that others must follow your specific moral code based strictly on a religious belief definitely is bigotry.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Would this not be as true of a law that limited marriage to a man and a woman as it would be of a law that allowed SSGM, so called? Either way, someone’s morality is legislated.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pmI’m beginning to wonder about this so called right of religious freedom. Isn’t it just a corruption of God’s law, put into effect by a bunch of rebellious, country-hating, backwoods colonists? Didn’t this so-called right of religious freedom go against centuries of divine right and marriage of church and state? Religion is not a choice.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 pmHi bit
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pmWould this not be as true of a law that limited marriage to a man and a woman as it would be of a law that allowed SSGM, so called? Either way, someone’s morality is legislated.
False equivalent. Freedom to choose is not a legislated choice. The moral equivalent would be to prohibit so called heterosexuals to marry, while allowing gays to do so. Or denying Christians the right to marry but allowing others to do so.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 pmEither way, someone’s morality is legislated.
Wrong.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:57 pmEthics are legislated… morality is personal.
Is there anything ethically wrong with two men or women publicly affirming that they wish to be married?
I’d say no.
Your moral code is your own business. Leave it out of our Government.
Would this not be as true of a law that limited marriage to a man and a woman as it would be of a law that allowed SSGM, so called? Either way, someone’s morality is legislated.
Please explain how your belief system would be legislated against if SOMEONE ELSE marries someone of the same-sex.
there has always been legal activity that is specifically not fundamentalist, which has not affected your right to practice your beliefs.
you have always been allowed to practice fundamentalist foolishness, so long as it doesn’t harm others. Same-sex marriage will have nothing to do with you, or that fact.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:57 pmOr legislating the age at which a person can be baptized.
Or legislating who can be priests.
Or legislating that a man must marry his deceased brother’s wife.
Jesus preached AGAINST legalism as the basis for sacred morality.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 pmbitbelt is a Pharisee. he knows what I’m talking about.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:00 pmThere is only ONE argument for prohibiting same sex marriage: a belief that it is a sin against God’s will. Thus, this is an area of sacred morality, not social morality, and belongs solely in the personal relationship of the person and his God. The rest of society has NO say in the matter and thus no laws should be made regarding it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 pmExactly PLC.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pmRealness, you are exactly right. I use the term “Christian Pharisee” frequently.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:04 pmbitblt has admitted that he wants the Christian equivalent of Sharia law in the United States in the area of gay marriage rights.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 pmI see the difference between a Pharisee and “Christian Pharisee.” He’s definitely the latter. How funny that’s one of the standout lessons from Sunday school the fundies can’t even grasp. Dogma always seems to be the problem.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 pmBit’s got nothing, so he/she plays the abortion card.
Bit? It will be found that “his (sic) amendment applied (sic) to same-same gender marriage(SSGM), so called (sic)” when the SCOTUS is forced to apply the 14th Amendment to all citizens.
You’re pretty stupid, aren’t ya? Stop thinking about GAY SEX!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmFurther, the New Testament of the Bible frequently refers to the relationship between Christ and the church (multiple people, both genders) as “marriage”. This indicates that “marriage” is a spiritual, personal, abiding committment to a loving relationship.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmPharisia law?
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Realness, you are exactly right. I use the term “Christian Pharisee” frequently.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
You know of course that the NT says many of the Pharisees believed in Christ. Believe the phrase is something like, “…more than a few of the Pharisees believed.”
Don’t recall that the NT saying the Sadducees believed.
Should bit call you a Secular Sadducee?
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:25 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Further, the New Testament of the Bible frequently refers to the relationship between Christ and the church (multiple people, both genders) as “marriage”. This indicates that “marriage” is a spiritual, personal, abiding committment to a loving relationship.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The Apostle Paul uses this illustration. He also says that Christ gave himself for the Church. Believe Paul says that a man should consider this relationship of Christ giving himiself for the Church as a model for a marriage. A man should be willing to give himself for his wife.
There is no justification for SSGM marriage in Paul’s words.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:29 pmShould bit call you a Secular Sadducee?
No.
Does bit have any reason the Government should legislate religious belief?
Careful what bit wishes for…
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:30 pmbit doesn’t get it.
Our nation is not based on biblical law, it is based on Constitutional law — it does not matter what your bible says in regard to the laws of this country.
Deal with it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 pmI hope you’re sitting down bb, because I have to tell you that the Bible has been interpreted differently by many people for centuries. I could care less about your particular interpretation. You live in a pluralistic democracy, with three branches of government. The belief in your magic sky god is dwindling, and rationality and the real morality of equality for everyone will win out.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pmIt has been awhile and dbadass realizes it will be off topic but dbadass would like to again ask bit if bit would be so kind as to rank the many christian sects/cults from best to worst. dbadass will forgive bit for bit’s earlier transgression if bit will just rank the christians.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pmOkay bit why don’t we start out slowly. Catholics versus Lutherans. Who’s on top?
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pmCatholics versus Lutherans. Who’s on top?
The Catholics… it’s the missionary position after all.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 pmralph notes that, when railing against homosexuality, fundamentalists like bit invariably go to the letters of Paul, rather than the Gospels which record the words and deeds of Jesus.
In fact, right-wing Christianists invariably go to Paul regardless of what right-wing bigotry they seek to justify.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pmbit leaves when his/her belief system starts looking shaky.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:28 amThere are now 86,000 same-sex couples in America, according to this map of gay marriages state by state. That’s in 10 states plus DC now. Other states may feel like they can continue to pretend these marriages don’t exist, but the federal government can’t any more, and that’s what this suit is about.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am