DOMA/Prop 8 decisions

[spyder]

You are aware that homosexual agenda is being bullied on children in schools, students in universities, workers in federal jobs etc., as we speak?

Yep, which is BS also. That would fall into the category of not forcing what you believe in on others, something I've been saying this entire time.

[Madeinhb]

It's ok to not agree with someone, but to force your beliefs upon the other person is bullying. Sorry if you couldn't understand that. ....but I'm the moron.....

So then 99% of everyone is a bully. Liberals push their beliefs, conservatives push theirs. Everyone does. That does not make them a bully. By this argument, because I might not agree with Obama's politics, I'm a racist.

[spyder]

But according to him it's ok if they are doing it.

If I've been saying that it is bad to force what you believe in on others this entire time, why would I be ok with forcing the "homosexual agenda" onto kids in school? Are you retarded?

[spyder]

So then 99% of everyone is a bully. Liberals push their beliefs, conservatives push theirs. Everyone does. That does not make them a bully. By this argument, because I might not agree with Obama's politics, I'm a racist.

..... I don't know how to argue with a retarded person.....

[Madeinhb]

..... I don't know how to argue with a retarded person.....

You're the retarded one. Did you vote for Obama? And all Dems in office? If you did, you're pushing your beliefs on anyone who isn't a dem.

[Madeinhb]

..... I don't know how to argue with a retarded person.....

Some people believe abortion is right and some believe its wrong. That's pushing beliefs. The list goes on and on.

[davsel]

Umm for arguments sake, the second amendment is a right given to us by the constitution and bill of rights. Marriage is not a right listed in either. Can't compare the two.

Umm, no it isn't. Do your own research on this subject.

[Madeinhb]

Umm, no it isn't. Do your own research on this subject.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/chr...2999/page/full

[davsel]

Umm, no it isn't. Do your own research on this subject.

http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/B/cB1a.htm

[davsel]

Do Traditional Marriage Supporters Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity?
by Jim DeMint, President of The Heritage Foundation

Some people can’t seem to understand why anyone would support marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy says we’re denying dignity to people in same-sex relationships.

But it is his ruling that denies dignity to those who don’t think a same-sex relationship is a marriage. His ruling denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.

The rhetoric from the Supreme Court attacking the goodwill of the majority of Americans—who know marriage is the union of a man and a woman—is not helpful. The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful.

Already, however, we have seen that those in favor of redefining marriage are willing to use the coercive force of law to marginalize and penalize those who hold the historic view of marriage—even if it means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way. This is already evident in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., where Christian adoption agencies have been forced to stop providing adoption and foster care services.

Legal challenges have been brought against wedding-related service providers who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, after they declined to participate in ceremonies that would have violated their consciences. A photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington, and a baker in Coloradohave already been victims of such intolerant coercion.

Our interest in marriage policy from the beginning has been to ensure that a man and woman commit to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children they create. This gives children the best chance at a flourishing future. When children have that, liberals are less likely to succeed in their efforts to grow the welfare state. It is impossible for the government to redefine marriage to make fathers optional and for society to insist at the same time that fathers are essential.

In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court refused to wrestle with any of theserious scholarly arguments that support marriage policy as the union of a man and a woman, and instead declared that Congress acted solely out of ill will.

It is outrageous to suggest that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all acting on the basis of anti-gay bias in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. As Chief Justice John Roberts says in his dissent, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”

Indeed, as Heritage has argued repeatedly, there are valid reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage—which those House Members, Senators, and President Clinton took into account. Marriage matters for children, civil society, and limited government, because children deserve a mother and a father, and when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high.

Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to TheMarriageFacts.com today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage. And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government.