Comments on: Gay couples blast federal Defense of Marriage Act

By: 366gay

366gay — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:35:31 +0000

It is I, 366gay alias God is Good and etc. I owe all you all a sincere apology. I have been a real ass on this web site among others. I have been spreading my hate in every direction and by any means on your community. I know now that I need to look deeper into myself to understand where this hate and fear of homosexuality comes from. Was I abused when I was a child? Am I gay? Did I grow up in a hateful and fearful environment? Have I been brainwashed by my beliefs? I do not have the answers yet. I would also like to apologize to all of Christianity as my lies and hate are more representative of the individual that I am than any particular belief system. Pray for me, I need help.

By: Callie Manning

Callie Manning — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:55:50 +0000

Well it’s about damn time we stood up for ourselves.

By: secrity

secrity — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:12:10 +0000

The Justice Department is controlled by the president; Obama could tell them to stop defending DOMA. Obama could also be fighting against DOMA, but he isn’t.

By: Linda Miskimen

Linda Miskimen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:36:06 +0000

nothing is moral that does not apply to all. Defense of Marriage Act is not a moral law as it does not apply to heterosexuals

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:32:55 +0000

Good. If you wait for the democratic party to undue Bill Clinton’s DOMA hack job, you will we waiting forever. The democrats love the gay vote, but when they control the government, every other issue goes to the front of the line.

By: Yhitzak

Yhitzak — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:41:18 +0000

366gay, you are a jerk. I stated very clearly that I don’t comprehend this very well and instead of being called out for that, I would appreciate a little assistance. I understand that states are defining their own laws regarding same-sex marriage, but I also understand that those laws are not honored on any federal level. The question of states’ rights has always been, in my opinion, a “slippery slope,” and one that is of particular interest in the case of prejudicial laws. Please, instead of telling me that I am an idiot, help me to understand. What else is the point of communication than to understand? Unless you’re just out there to put other people down…

Highlighting the case of Loving v Virginia is, perhaps, one of the most appropriate case-studies to cite in this discussion because it concerned CIVIL marriage rights, not RELIGIOUS marriage rights, or, rather, the decision of Loving v Virginia made it clear on at least one level (race) that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage. This case sets a precedent in marriage rights.

By: ps2os2

ps2os2 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:35:52 +0000

States rights has been a call for bigots and generally anyone who knows that what one state can get away with is literally murder. Its was proven in the south with the black people and they are attempting to do the same thing with gay rights.

That is but one of the reasons that it took the south so long to fight the idea of black rights. Now they have stolen the idea and using it on us.

I suspect they will be still fighting about this in 100 years.

By: 366gay

366gay — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:03:06 +0000

MarkG, let me answer your question about different marital rules.

By the way, when you mentioned blacks and whites and species, why did YOU suggest that it was blacks who were not being considered the human beings and not whites. (Consider your own racism and bigotry)

It is you and some in the gay community who wish to impose different rules upojn society.

Marriage is defined by age, partners (1), mental competency, and gender. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry members of the same sex, even if it is financially or medically beneficial. Heteros can not marry if they are declared mentally incompetent or do not meet the age requirements or if they wish to have multiple partners.

Why should some gays be given special privileges, that no other group has? Polygamist and adult incest couples can not marry the one or ones that they love, even if they are heterosexual relaitonships.

By: 366gay

366gay — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:54:08 +0000

MarkG are you looking for hate and determined to find it in places other than you rown mirror.

I said and I quote: The 1967 Loving v. Virginia case had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, polygamy decided in 1964 in the Reynolds v. United States case, but had to do with the right of XY men and XX women of the same species to marry.
Read plase, it says that Loving v. Virginia, a white XY woman and black XX manthe right of XY men and XX women of the same species to marry.

So, do you belong to a National hate group, that has polluted your mind, to make such a decipher.

Sorry, I do not play illogical question games, but you answer your question in this form.

Answer this question: How does prohibiting polygamy and adult incest marriage serve the social good, except to validate the prejudices of others at the expense of the quality of life towards another group? What are your real motiviations?

By: Tara

Tara — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:21:55 +0000

I went looking for this but it doesn’t seem to have made it to 365gay.

District Judge Tena Callahan issued her ruling in a state court in Dallas last week to strike down the Texas marriage amendment, as well as the state DOMA, stating that the state ban on same-sex “marriage” violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ruling marks the first time that a state court judge has struck down marriage laws based on the U. S. Constitution.

Hey that is a step.