Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

TheBlaze TV

‘Real News’: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution

Nov. 29, 2012 6:07pm Christopher Santarelli

The Supreme Court will decide Friday whether or not to take up a case that would settle the fate of same-sex marriage. There are a number of appellate cases being appealed to the highest court involving the Defense of Marriage Act, but the case they are likely to consider will involve California’s Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage by a successful ballot initiative after the state already permitted it. Same-sex marriage, for the first time by statewide popular vote, was victorious at the ballot box this past November in Maine and Maryland. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans now support same-sex couples getting married, however, the margin is close and a sizable number of Americans–including the majority in many individual states–believe marriage should remain between a man and woman.

If the Court take the case, it will not be considering religious ideology or popular sentiment, but how the merits of same-sex marriage comply or conflict with the Constitution. On “Real News” Thursday the panel debated the ideological aspects and each side on whether or not same-sex marriage can be protected under the Constitution. Watch a clip below with Adam Freedman, author of “The Naked Constitution“:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (76)

Harold B
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:21pm
Marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. If a gay duet wants get hitched, just have one get a sex change.
That however is not really the problem, the problem is that what is happening, is illegai and treasonous. Article 10 of the US Constitution forbids the federal government from being involved in this arena in any way, especially the courts who at least should read article 10 of the Constitution. This is an affair of each stste and is being used to extend non Constitutional power to the all encompassing of a liberty hating socialist government.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
billrind
Posted on December 2, 2012 at 12:50am
you show hosts who work for GlenBeck and spout out same sex marriage is fine with all of you is really hypocritcal to say the least, Glen speaks of God in many positive ways and you hosts speak of abominations being acceptable, is pandering to a group of sodomites that goes against what Glenn Beck supposes to represent. i would suggest you keep this perverted subject to youselves or mak a formal aplology to the listeners who watch Beck for conservative view points, not the trash that is on all the other letter networks.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Balzy
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 12:57pm
  WHAT? dude these guys are friggin awsome, first of all. I love Glenn too man, but he feels the same way. It’s all about being in the world, but not of the world. Me and you both obviously disagree that a human being could gain anything from homosexuality, but we also have to step aside and let God be the judge. You could lecture someone til they’re blue in the face about why they’re wrong. or you could show them your way of life, in hopes that they might see the merit of it all. If they think you hate them, they probably won’t listen. if they see how much you truly care about their soul things might be different.
  
  Report this comment
nomsain
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:15am
****—uals ALREADY have the right to marry, what they are demanding is a SPECIAL privilege. Since the beginning of human history, marriage was one man and one woman and for good and obvious reasons. Allow gays something else, but not marriage.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tandem2011
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 6:54am
Give gays the right to same-sex marriage already…and then tell them to shut up and start thinking about bigger issues for a change…like defending our Constitution from all the Commie-Democrats who’re destroying America.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MainThingIsDontGetExcited
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:15am
  Give them an inch and they will take a … larger amount.
  
  Report this comment
- THERAPTURCOMES
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:01am
  Then we can give the pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality the same rights Oh and how about polygamy?
  
  This nation is on the verge of destruction for these and other perversions. The resurrection/rapture is about to take place http://youtu.be/ahEVxIzlxwo all the while the gospel is not heard anymore Romans 10:9-10
  
  Report this comment
Corneo
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 5:09am
Discrimination is based on something a person was born with or something a person cannot change.
If you put 100 men in a room you will be able to tell the difference by sex, color, race and national origin. You would not be able to tell the difference by means of “a choice” a person made in life. To this day, science still can’t tell you what makes a person gay. Because of that we have to look at being gay as a choice and their decision of being gay can be changed with a thought.
Until science can prove different. A person who chooses the gay life style, does it without any special recognition from the law.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:16am
  You also wouldn’t be able to tell from amongst those 100 men which ones are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Pagan, Hindu, Shinto, etc., etc. If we are to disavow Constitutional protections for people who are not born X, but who choose to become X later in life consciously, then we’re gonna hafta repeal the part of the 1st Amendment that protects religious liberties.
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:49am
  If you believe it to be a choice than you must believe you have the capacity to turn gay, yea? Are you worried they’ll turn you gay? Hmmm?
  
  Thus is my non-scientific evidence why I don’t believe it’s a choice: I can’t choose to be gay. I am attracted to woman. I can’t just change that. I didn’t choose to like woman, I just do. And I have since before I ever really knew what it meant to like woman.
  
  So if you believe it to be a choice ask yourself; am I capable of choosing the gay life style? If not, you didn’t have a choice but to like woman. Thus they more than likely feel the same way.
  
  Report this comment
- Corneo
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 10:09am
  Constitutional protections is based on natural laws. I really don’t see where the 1st amendment giving the freedom to practice religion without persecution and the right to a gay life style have in common, since nobody is prosecuting anybody for being gay. it is a person right to choose to be gay and you shall reap the rewards from this decision.
  I will agree that a person does have the right to choose their partner in life and mathematically speaking it is very possible for the same sex to be attracted and love each other.
  
  I can even agree where chemicals in your brain are released when certain things happen to a person that brings great pleasure to the individual. Don’t freak, this happens to everybody. But nobody can prove you are born gay, that you can’t change from being gay or straight, that you should be recognized because of the decision in life you have made.
  
  Or to put it more simply. It is not your right to force me to except a gay life style as the norm and that I just have to live with it. If this the case, then it is my right to force you to become Muslin.
  
  Report this comment
katiefrankie
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 3:33am
We’re not talking about the privilege or the “right” to marry – everyone has that opportunity afforded to them (as long as they abide by certain restrictions, such as age requirements, current marital status, etc.) and those requirements aren’t even the same for each state (so the 14th amendment argument isn’t holding up here, much like the “right” to bear arms isn’t static across the US either).

What we are talking about here is the DEFINITION of marriage, which has universally been between a male and a female, and has been constant across virtually all cultures. Why is that?

Because marriage has always been about the siring and rearing of children in the most optimal environment.

To alter that definition to appease the whims of a few will cause harm to the family unit, which is the basis of society, and it will damage those most vulnerable in society above all – children. That is why I do not support the idea of gay marriage and, while I am okay with extending legal benefits to gay couples, I believe that the US government should not play social scientist or God in this matter.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Steve28
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:10am
  Well, said. I feel the break down of the family unit has done a massive amount of harm to society as it is and does not need further help from the government that has hurt the family enough already with social programs.
  
  Report this comment
powedj
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:53pm
I want to marry my cat.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:56pm
  if you are having sex with you cat, then there is a bigger problem than marriage
  
  Report this comment
- Free2speakRN
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:36am
  soybomb315_II
  
  Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, POWEDJ or his cat prefer to wait.
  
  POWEDJ, if so, I commend your restraint.
  
  Report this comment
- DMENTED
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 4:21am
  Declaw her first. Why look for trouble?
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:05am
  Sorry Free, i shouldnt have jumped to conclusions….A true christian would wait to have sex with the cat until after they are married
  
  Report this comment
R.A. Bullseye
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:28pm
I’m very surprised that everyone on Real News are in favor of gay marriage on the grounds that it is discriminatory. Suppose a brother and sister want to marry because they are very much in love or what about a man who is madly in love with his dog or horse? What about a man who wants to marry 5 women? A woman who wants to marry 7 men? If we don’t allow these people to marry isn’t that discrimination? Like I said I am very surprised that every one at the table raised their hand in favor of gay marriage.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:37pm
  similarly, why do we ‘allow’ fat people to eat? After all, fat people are dangerous to those around them and, according to the bible, it is a sin. Therefore, it should be against the law to be fat.
  
  Do you think that would be a moral law? Would it do any good?
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:38pm
  Brother and Sister? Don’t care
  You and a toaster? A) don’t care and B) A toaster cannot agree to a legally binding contract
  A man and 7 wives? Don’t care
  A woman and 7 husbands? Yea right, find me 7 guys willing to share 1 woman… oh yea and I don’t care….
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:04am
  @SOY
  
  C’mon…you’re better that.
  
  When you go for the absurd, you admit defeat.
  
  The brother/sister, underage, and cat scenarios may seem to be slippery slopes, but you can search online and find that type of behavior. This shows that the slope is not as slippery as you think and the questions are valid.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:12am
  slippery slope is exactly how we got in our current mess in this country – it is not a fantasy. It is a legitimate argument for the reasons i listed. Are you going to ignore logic on this issue?
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:13am
  Why do you care is the biggest question.
  
  “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
  
  Report this comment
- DIgnified
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:05am
  States where cousin marriage is legal:
  Connecticut, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Diistrict of Columbia, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, Colorado, California, Oregon, New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii
  Try one of these.
  
  Report this comment
JEANNIEMAC
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:14pm
In in old Star Trek episode, there was a discussion as to whether a nano bit was a living thing. The doctor said that because the nano ate, excreted and reproduced, it was a living thing. Homosexuals, as such, cannot reproduce. It follows they are not meant to exist, as such.
Men can make laws giving rights. But, as G.K. Chesterton said: Having a right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:41pm
  Actually, homosexuals CAN reproduce, they don’t become sterile just because they have sex with the same sex. A lesbian woman can still become pregnant and gay man can still have strong swimmers. With modern science of artificial incrimination and surrogate mothers, gay couples can absolutely reproduce.
  
  So going back to your original argument, should a sterile man or woman, someone who cannot physically create a child, be banned from being married because they are incapable of reproducing, no matter how they try?
  
  Report this comment
John WIS.
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:16pm
It’s a pretty simple stance to take.

Do not recognize “gay marriage”.

Not at home…and not in the workplace.

What are you going to do? Arrest me? Sue me?

Go for it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:52pm
  And why would it matter to a gay couple if YOU don’t recognize their marriage? I doubt they’d give two sh!ts about your opinion quiet frankly, as long as they receive the same legal benefits that is afforded to those who are married (either by the state or companies, such as insurance and hospital visitations, etc)
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:03pm
  @AMERICAN SOLDIER (SEPARATED)
  
  Insurance coverage is decided by the employer.
  
  Visitation rights should be allowed.
  
  Property rights and the like are decided by contracts.
  
  A homosexual union is not a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:07pm
  i dont care what gay people call themselves because they neither pick my pocket or break my leg….
  
  You can be against something – but you are not entitled to have the government enforce morality
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:16pm
  Property rights decided by contract… yea, a marriage contract. Why do a gay couple have to pay a lawyer what you get for free, automatically, as a married couple?
  
  Report this comment
- DIgnified
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:11am
  One of the definitions of marry is “to unite in a close, usually permanent way’
  
  Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:16pm
Complete freedom…. ?

I will ask you this. Consider that you are male…. should you have the freedom to marry either your mother of your father?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The-Monk
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:28pm
  EDIT
  “or” not “of”
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:51pm
  can we get a ‘little freedom’ before people start talking about absolutes? We have a freaking Constitution, there is no need to use your imagination
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:53pm
  Does it really matter or affect you?
  
  How about we get control of our government and actually REDUCE their power and influence over our lives rather than ADD or maintain it like you would like to do on this issue.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:00pm
  @THE-MONK
  
  I believe the proponents of homosexual unions would use science as their argument…something akin to:
  
  Of course not, science has proven incest to be dangerous.
  
  In regards to underage marriage they would say:
  
  Of course not, science says they are too young psychologically (or physically).
  
  The odd thing is, they don’t reference science regarding homosexuality:
  
  They never say: It is illogical, unproductive, unhealthy or what not.
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:05pm
  “They never say: It is illogical, unproductive, unhealthy or what not.”
  
  And if it is illogical, unproductive and unhealthy or what not, why does it matter to you? How many times in your life have you done something illogical, unproductive and unhealthy or what not? Probably about 10 times a day throughout just your four years in high school….
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:57pm
  @AMERICAN SOLDIER
  
  I never understand why people have a problem with limitations…
  
  Pure libertarianism is anarchy in disguise.
  
  There must be limitations, albeit as few as possible and decided as locally as possible, but limitations nonetheless.
  
  Any limitation by definition is going to limit some people from doing what they want to.
  
  All care and consideration should be taken to ensure that the denial of certain behavior is just and fair.
  
  A case can be made for everyone whose urges are being outlawed that tramples their freedoms.
  
  Can I run a red light? Can I fire a gun in a movie theater as long as I don’t hit anyone? Neither is harming you?
  
  Homosexuality is abnormal…it is unproductive…it does mot leovide the ideal environment for child rearing…it is against the religion of most Americans.
  
  Sorry it steps on people’s toes…but that’s a natural consequence of law and order.
  
  The only other option is the “do what you want, just leave me and my stuff alone” which is veiled anarchy.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:13am
  pure libertarianism is a stupid argument. There is zero chance and no forseeable way to ever have pure libertarianism. It also ignores the fact that there are many levels of government…We dont have just one monolithic government
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:21am
  I find it funny that we are so over regulated in this country that freedom is viewed as Anarchy.
  
  @BROTHER_ED
  
  Libertarians do not call for NO government or authority, but strictly limited to the point where only the absolute necessary components exist. I have no problem with having a strong central government that will have a strong military to protect our borders. I have no problem with state governments. I appreciate local government, law enforcement officers.
  
  I do not want anarchy nor do I want lawlessness.
  
  Can I run a red light? Can I fire a gun in a movie theater as long as I don’t hit anyone? Neither is harming you?
  
  Running that red light can hurt me, by T boning the side of my vehicle or running over a pedestrian cross the street. Firing a gun in a crowded theater can hurt me, if there’s a second level to the building, or if I’m a maintenance employee in the attic/roof.
  
  To compare these two to homosexuals getting married is ludicrous at best….
  
  Against the religion of most Americans? Well, thank YOUR God we don’t live in a THEOCRACY!
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:59am
  @AMERICAN SOLDIER (SEPARATED)
  
  Your logic is flawed.
  
  You said: “Running that red light can hurt me, by T boning the side of my vehicle or running over a pedestrian cross the street. Firing a gun in a crowded theater can hurt me, if there’s a second level to the building, or if I’m a maintenance employee in the attic/roof.”
  
  But it may not…it should only be a crime by your “it doesn’t pick my pocket” argument until it actually does happen.
  
  MIGHT happen does not equal a crime.
  
  Report this comment
1_Smoot_Tall
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:05pm
“How does a guy lay on the beach, look at another guys hairy a$$ and say, ‘Oooh! I want that!’”

-Andrew Dice Clay

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
1_Smoot_Tall
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:04pm
So, can I marry a toaster if I want to define marriage my own way?
As long as we’re re-defining things and using **** logic:
Can I adopt my father and make him call me Dad?
How is it fair that I can marry a beautiful woman and you cannot, hmm?
If you marry a woman, the law says I cannot also marry her, is that fair?
Does this make NAMBLA right?
Race is a fact, sexual deviancy is a choice and cannot even be proven. How do you prove you are gay?
I say stop all AIDS research now and let the **** problem solve itself.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 1_Smoot_Tall
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:12pm
  “****” above was substituted by the Blaze for the word “fLag”ut without the “L”. Some pink-pajama kwier-boy at the Blaze like Will “The Clown” Cain is filtering out “fLag” now. Perverted deviants deserve to have H.I.V. viruses banging on their back door.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:28pm
  you can do anything you want and call it anything you want…Crazy people do it too. Why do we waste our time talking about issues like this
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:00pm
  “So, can I marry a toaster if I want to define marriage my own way?”
  Marriage, in a legal sense, is a contract between two consenting adults. So unless your toaster has AI and can make a conscious decision on whether or not they can see living the rest of YOUR natural born life together, you can see how flawed your argument is.
  
  “As long as we’re re-defining things and using **** logic:”
  No one is actually re-defining things. Marriage shouldn’t be a governmental issue. It shouldn’t be regulated by local, state or federal authorities. It should be merely A) a spiritual committment through your individual faith thus the decision to marry gays should be let to the judge, priest, rabbi or ship’s captain to decide if they’ll perform the service and/or B) a legally binding contract which allots certain benefits from government (taxes) and other translations (insurance, etc.)
  
  “Can I adopt my father and make him call me Dad?”
  I suppose so, why not? Doesn’t affect me. I won’t lose any sleep over it.
  
  “How is it fair that I can marry a beautiful woman and you cannot, hmm?”
  Are you for or against gay marriage now? I’m confused..
  
  “Does this make NAMBLA right?”
  Underaged children are not afforded all rights yet until they reach the legal age of 18 (in most states) to enter into a legally binding contract
  
  “Race is a fact, sexual deviancy is a choice and cannot even be proven. How do you prove you are gay?”
  Why does it matter if they prove they are ga
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:01pm
  “I say stop all AIDS research now and let the **** problem solve itself.”
  
  Is that part of that whole Christian love thy neighbor philosophy? Excellent example of the kindness of Christ you represent there….
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:04pm
  “Perverted deviants deserve to have H.I.V. viruses banging on their back door.”
  
  And somehow you think you’re better than them? Question is still out there, is this the model behavior of your Jesus Christ? He without sin cast the first stone right? All sin is equal in the eyes of god right? So what makes you and your sin any better than their sin?
  
  Why don’t you live your life and stop worrying about what Bob and Carl are doing in the bedroom at night. It neither pr!cks your foot nor picks your wallet.
  
  Report this comment
Carlinpa
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:33pm
UGHH Disallowing two guys are tow women to get “married” is NOT discrimination!
Discrimination is like a screen that filters out people based on characteristics or associations from a specific action. Like voting, you can vote, bout NOT if you are a woman or black, etc. Now, women can vote, that inclusions does NOT affect or change the specific action, it remains exactly as it was prior. Now everybody can vote except if you are under 18 or an ex felon. Why is that?

Marriage is a term that was created by us “church for man and woman” to describes what it is that we do when a man and a woman come together in matrimony. ” Marriage. They are NOT prohibited based on sexual orientation. A gay man can marry a straight women, a gay man can marry a gay woman, etc.
So therefore there is NO discrimination prevent ” homosexuals’ from voting.. ahh I mean getting married.

This is coming from a group that has various terms to describe specific combination for themselves.
Gay typically two men, lesbians, two women, why? Aren’t they both homosexuals? Why the need for exclusive terms?

They can already get a civil union, what is it with thee liberals, they want to destroy all of American culture and pervert all meaning of everything.

There is no reason other than the one that is their real reason, money! They’re gay pride is a thumb in our eyes and a display of vulgarity that always attacks Christianity and any semblance of morality and has NOTHING to do with any pride

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:53pm
  @carlinpa
  you ask “what is it with these liberals, they want to destroy all of American culture and pervert all meaning of everything.”
  Funny thing is, it is EXACTLY the same question conservatives were asking in 1865 when the 13th Amendment ended slavery, in 1868 when the 15th gave the vote to non-whites, and in 1920 when the 19th gave the vote to women.
  You’re right, liberals destroyed a lot of culture, and ‘perverted’ the meaning of everything when they passed those laws. Care to return to those times?
  
  Report this comment
- John WIS.
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:06pm
  @Marine25:
  
  You are truly @ss backwards…about a great, many things.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:10pm
  JROTC25 (I highly doubt you are/were a marine, you’re too much of a wimp). Funny thing is the DEMOCRATS did everything you just said. And no, they did not change sides. Dems are still just as racist, misogynist, and bigoted as ever. Congratulations! You’re a loser.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:49pm
  Doubt what you want. I said liberals passed those laws, and conservatives opposed them. How is that funny? More importantly, how is that not true?
  The current Republican party spends more time and effort shrinking the party than they do growing it. Dissent by your politicians results in cries of ‘RINO’ and primary challenges from the right. Non-conservative servicemen are ‘unpatriotic’. Hispanic Americans are ‘illegals’, homosexuals are ‘immoral’, non-christians are ‘infidels’, single women are ‘sluts’, blacks are ‘takers’. The ‘purifying’ of conservatism has resulted in the GOP losing 5 of the last 6 popular votes for President, and the gift-wrapping of the last two Senate campaigns. The obsession with moral superiority is your fast track to political insignificance.
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:49pm
  Let’s see…
  
  “Discrimination is like a screen that filters out people based on characteristics [homosexual preference] or associations from a specific action [marriage]”
  
  Your own definition applies to homosexual marriage!
  
  Look, if there were ZERO perks for being married, I’d say whatever. But there are BENEFITS to being married, several benefits and even more so in the military. Why should a gay solder have to suffer living in the barracks while his fellow (straight) soldiers can go ahead and marry some random townie and get BAS and BAH and get a nice little place off post?
  
  If there are legal and governmental benefits to being married, and you disallow certain lawful groups from participating based on their sexual preference, that is discrimination.
  
  Look, gay marriage and marriage in general are not in the constitution so it should be a state issue. Hell, it shouldn’t even be a state issue, it should just be an issue between them and whomever marries them. Whether it’s a judge, a priest, a rabbi or a ship’s captain, all a marriage truly is (legally) is a binding contract between two individuals. A symbol of their commitment and devotion to one another. This one happens to carry benefits along with it.
  
  Why do we have to get a LICENSE to get married anyways? Why does the government have a say in who or when I get married? Why do I have to pay a FEE to said government just to make a legal committment to my significant other?
  
  Report this comment
starman70
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:28pm
I watched the Real News segment on gay marriage and I must disagree with the majority of the panel. Ever since ancient times, the word marriage connotates a union of a man and a woman. This is of course is to bring children into the world and continue humankind.

I personally have no objections to any forms of “Civil Unions” between two gay people. Sich “Civil Unions” should, by law, have all the rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage including property rights, suvivor and beneficiary rights and annulment rights. Civil unions should have the same force of law as traditional marriage.

The word marriage and its meaning in both society and the law should not be changed. It should always remain a union between a man and a woman.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:40pm
  ancient people believe the world was flat too. It’s fine to be against gay marriage for personal reasons, but dont expect society to be telling people how to live – thats what the arabs do
  
  Report this comment
- 1_Smoot_Tall
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:55pm
  A **** came onto me once… once.
  
  Report this comment
- starman70
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:05pm
  @SOYBOMB315_II:
  
  Ancient people who believed that the earth was flat also believed that marriage was the union between a man and a woman.
  
  As I said, I have no qualms about the institution of Civil Unions for gays. It is just that the word marriage should be reserved for its traditional meaning. By the way, do you wish to try to institute the change of the traditional marriage in the Islamic world?
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:22pm
  i dont play the game of society wordism. I am against gay marriage for biblical reasons and go about that in my personal life with all those around me. I doubt anyone decides to be gay or not be gay based on whether society calls is “marriage” versus “union”….
  
  It is semantics, which is usually a method used by liberals
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:11pm
  Why does it matter whether it’s called a marriage or a union?
  
  I’m an Agnostic, i have no religious faith or following, yet I was married. By a judge. Why can I call it marriage but they aren’t suppose to use that sacred term?
  
  Report this comment
4-The-Truth
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:25pm
Food for thought. http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
CanadaRocks
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:23pm
Freedom and equal rights are cornerstones of america. When you pick and choose who get certain rights and who doesn’t, it makes that society both hypocritical and weak. No ones marriage is going to destroy your life. Get over it. If you think its wrong than great, you are more than able to have your opinion. Religion is no business being a part of law making which is the same reason we denounce a lot of islamic governments. Our religions shouldnt shape laws as much as theirs shouldnt. We are all equal in gods they say. Animal farm logic does not work in a civilized society.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 1_Smoot_Tall
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:08pm
  Marriage itself is a religious institution created by God. You are a hypocrite if you come along later and redefine marriage, then tell people who, for religious reasons, object to you redefining it “Religion is no business being a part of law “. Religion made God’s law then government complied thereby proving the involvement of Religon in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- CanadaRocks
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:20pm
  My point is that you cant give it one group and not the other.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:49pm
  “No ones marriage is going to destroy your life.”
  
  Do you really believe anyone thinks that it is? The reason people are upset over the issue is this consistent redefining of values to appease a select few who wish to impose theirs. To many people and religions, marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman and the cornerstone of family. Family is the cornerstone social institution of civilization, even though the definition of family may differ among cultures. Homosexuals obviously cannot produce a family in marriage.
  
  The original argument for homosexual marriage was to allow for the economic benefits such as insurance and taxes or have you forgotten? Everyone said sure you can have civil unions, but no that wasn’t good enough. We now have to redefine marriage for the sake of homosexuals. That is what people are upset about.
  
  If you try to compare homosexual marriage to civil rights, you are opening Pandora’s box.
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:15pm
  Smooth and Tall
  
  I’m Agnostic, a non-believer, yet I was married. Said so on the certificate and everyone in my chain of command called it a marriage. I was given all the same benefits of being married, including military ones such as receiving BAH and BAS. Wasn’t a drop of it in religion whatsoever. So why am I allowed to marry if the argument is that it’s a religious thing ONLY?
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:18pm
why not just let each state decide? Take the issue away from the democrats at the federal level

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:26pm
  You’re suggesting the feds relinquish power? How dare you sir, the feds will be at your house within the hour to make sure your mind is right.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:42pm
  “You’re suggesting the feds relinquish power?”
  
  No, i am suggesting the republicans relinquish power. It is the Constitutional position and good politically….Should be a no-brainer if they believed what they say they believe
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:43pm
  Outside of arguing the 14th Amendment, it is a state issue under the 10th. But even on states issues the law must be equally applied to everyone or violate the 14th Amendment. So, if marriage is law, and their are protections and rights legally attached to it, it has to be prescribed equally to everyone eligible. Now, unless you can successfully argue that two men or two women do not have the requisite responsibility of a man and a women (the rationale that allows states to prohibit children from driving and felons from voting) I think you lose on a straight 14th argument. And no, violating the 14th is not permissable just because the jurisdiction came to the states through the 10th. People scream about that on here all the time, ‘tenthers’. They are wrong. States couldn’t opt out of the 18th because of the 10th because the 18th made booze federal, and therefore the 10th didn’t apply.
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:31pm
  Marine25, exactly, since the 10th states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution[...] and clearly, having a 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION delegated the power of this amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- DIgnified
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:14am
  The big states pretty much have voted for it. Who cares what the flyovers, mouthbreathers, and mythology belivers think. They aren’t the only ones here.
  
  Report this comment
- Balzy
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 1:09pm
  wow dig,
  
  soooo you’re not a mouthbreather? do you breathe with your ass?
  
  Report this comment
- Balzy
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 1:10pm
  i’m just messin ;D
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.