When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in Congress in 1996, the vote was bi-partisan and overwhelming. In the House, the tally was 342-67. Only the farthest left of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against it. A majority of Democrats supported marriage. In the Senate, the vote was even more lopsided and bi-partisan, 85-14. Again, most Democrats backed marriage. In both houses of Congress, the DOMA passed with such strong margins that President Clinton could clearly see the measure had better than "veto strength." That is, if he had vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could have...
Because many same sex marriages do provide stability and not all traditional marriages provide stability in any sense of the word. So in essence, this reward is not based on the behavior you claim it is meant for. Furthermore, marriage is about the joining of two lives through a sacred or ultimate pledge. It is not about propagation. Though an important part of life, the lack of children does not invalidate or devalue a traditional marriage. Finally if it is an all important goal of society to employ best method for raising the next generation of citizens, then it would enforce standards to that end and take steps against those who don’t provide such a setting. Are you calling for the government to come in and take away the child?
- Quote of the day Allahpundit 8 hours ago
- Big Labor: ObamaCare is making income inequality worse, you know Erika Johnsen 9 hours ago
- Reading 2.0: There’s an app for that Jazz Shaw 11 hours ago
- China draws its own “red line” …on North Korea Erika Johnsen 12 hours ago
- IRS to give up, release all Lerner e-mails, documents Jazz Shaw 14 hours ago
- Ukraine: Another 3 AM wake-up call going unheeded Ed Morrissey 15 hours ago