In response to:

Same-Sex Politics

rob1633 Wrote: May 15, 2012 9:40 AM
Throughout human history, pair bonding has been male-female to produce offspring primarily and safety, survive-ability second. Nowhere in human history is there evidence that same sex anything has evolved to be accepted. So, here we are in the 21st Century and we are so modern and developed that we can tolerate a few variations on this theme, that's great. Marriage is the preferred route, but for those who don't meet the ideal (man and woman) that our society is willing to sanction publicly, can still privately contract with another and obtain greater protection under the law than marriage offers. So, why not create a solution that addresses a system clearly not organized to support a peculiar situation?Why force change on the rest of us?
Jay Wye Wrote: May 15, 2012 5:43 PM
This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.

Of course,some people IGNORE the second part of Article IV,sec 1;
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.

Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did.
Cambermeister Wrote: May 15, 2012 10:07 AM
Rob, in the last decade, uncertain/self loathing homosexuals have whipped most domestic homosexuals into line. This is who our President now panders to. This crowd could care less about any rights. They despise their condition and hope the straight label will make them a little less miserable.
Does this seem like a very long torchered process for nothing but semantics?
Cambermeister Wrote: May 15, 2012 10:01 AM
"Why force change on the rest of us?" You said follks could 'can still privately contract with another and obtain greater protection under the law than marriage offers'.
This was Our Prresident's position 10 days ago. He wanted national/federal unions with rights identical to marriage. For proud homosexuals, this path was ideal. They could gain all of the rights without being forced to use the straight nomenclature. (cont)

So how did "same-sex marriage" get to be a political issue in the first place -- the kind of issue that draws presidents and presidential contenders into the smoke enveloping this extraordinary battlefield?

Does Barack Obama's opinion on the matter matter in the least? For that matter, does Mitt Romney's? The issue of whether men may lawfully marry men and women women is religious, is it not? Isn't it cultural at the very least? Would Teddy Roosevelt recognize the issue? Would James Madison or Thomas Jefferson? Not a chance.

Politics as the key to human happiness was a notion unknown until...