E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Shawna Thomas and Carrie Dann
The law firm hired by the House of Representatives to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court has decided it will drop its defense of the federal statute, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The firm, King and Spalding, had faced protests from gay rights groups after its contract with the House Administration Committee and General Counsel - along with its attached price tag of up to $500,000 -- was reported. The Human Rights Campaign announced a national campaign last week to urge the group to withdraw from the agreement.
The firm had agreed to work on behalf of the GOP-led House after the Obama administration announced earlier this year that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the law, which it says is unconstitutional.
Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush and the lead lawyer on the legal team hired to defend DOMA in court, has also resigned from King and Spalding.
In his resignation letter, Clement wrote that his decision was a result of his "firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters."
Clement has joined a new firm, Bancroft PLLC.
House Speaker John Boehner’s office clarified that Clement and his new firm will still defend DOMA for the House of Representatives.
Boehner’s spokesman said today, “The Speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter. At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House.”
The firm's chairman, Robert Hayes, Jr released the following statement earlier Monday:
"Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.
"In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."
In his resignation letter, Clement argued, "if there were problems with the firm's vetting process, we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation."
King and Spalding had just filed a motion to intervene as a defendant on behalf of the House of Representatives on Monday, April 18th.
In a statement, a spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi praised the firm's decision to drop its defense of the law.
"Leader Pelosi shares Mr. Hays' apparent concerns with the lack of transparency and accountability in the way this contract was signed. She also vigorously opposes using half a million taxpayer dollars or any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure. It is now more critical than ever that Speaker Boehner fully account for his decision to sign this half million dollar contract to defend this indefensible statue."
*** UPDATE *** In a statement, House Adminstration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., praised Clement and called King and Spalding's decision to withdraw from its defense of DOMA "an insult to the legal profession."
"I want to express my gratitude to former Solicitor General Clement. I admire his unwavering commitment to his clients and his dedication to uphold the law - qualities that appear to be inconsequential at King and Spalding where politics and profit now appear to come first.
"King and Spalding's cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession. Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I'm confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts - not the President - determine DOMA's constitutionality."
Leave a Comment:
My only problem with this is that the Democrats never take advantage of these situations.
What a joke, Spending money, our money, on this. Republicans only want to cut when is not beneficial to them. Guess we will have to kick these bastards out too.
Oponents to the gay marriage should make a pot luck and put some money to fight for their bigoted law, we know is not going to be just 500K, so let them pay for it, I do not want my tax money to defend that.
Who cares about this issue that affects an increasingly radical 5% of our population that won't accept the votes of the majority (black, Hispanic, white) in our states? The dollar is dropping like a rock, inflation is ramping up, still high unemployment, soon to be $5 per gallon gas, a flat broke Fed. gov. - this is what matters.
Civil rights are SO unimportant -- until YOUR rights are denied.
BTW, civil rights cannot be voted on, as the tyranny of the majority would deny rights to the minority.
so why is same sex marriage voted on? just go do it.
The majority cannot take away the rights of the minority. That is what it means to be a Constitutional Republic (we are not a Democracy).
Same sex marriage is being voted on because nobody has challenged it, until recently (see Prop 8 challenges).
How bout smaller government... in your pants.
I don't understand why the Republicans and Democrats can't understand that their only job in Washington is to get the economy going. It is not up to the government who we choose to sleep with.
Why bring the Democrats into this? Most of us don't care you you sleep with.
US Consumer- When has a Democrat tried to regulate who you can sleep with? The GOP is the only party that wants big brother in your pants.
From the Religious stand point "We Chrsitians" do not hate you,we did not call your lifestyle wrong(Sin), the Bible which we believe to be the Word (how to live so when you die you stay in His presence for eternity)from our Creator says that homosexuality as well as fornication, adultry and other actions seperate you from Him. We want you to live not die, if we hated you we would keep quiet and allow you to go to Hell(Which is what we believe not you I get that)Just trying to give you some insight as to why "We Christians" stand for what we feel God says not us.Also we can't get to heaven through works its through faith in Christ Jesus who loves you as well........Now from a legal side of it I feel it very dangerous that a President thinks he can decide which laws to abide by. If there is a question of being unconstitutional let the Congress and the courts(like they are doing with Obamacare) decide. Then what happens when the next President in office says Obamacare is unconstitutuional will everyone who is for it now be for it then? The President cant and should never be allowed to decide what laws to follow. That should not be a republican or democrat divide....Last there are plenty of secular nations that only see marriage as between One Man and One woman and we do have no problem telling and prosecuting Mormons on that legal stance. You want to be a homosexual thats fine there are no laws against that and you do have unions in some states that give you all the benefits fo Marriage. Its you who are trying to make marraige conform to you not the other way around.
The President and Attorney General have made it clear that they will no longer defend DOMA, but they will continue to enforce and uphold it -- as is their duty -- until it is repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, because they believe it be unconstitutional. They have not stated unequivocally, or "decided," that the law is unconstitutional, but that is what they believe.
WRONG. There are approximately 1,100 federal rights, benefits, and responsibilities that attach to marriage, not civil unions -- and the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate" is not "equal".
Forget this "Feelngood w/ christ" guy and his whole "save you from going to hell" BS. The bible also indicates that a finite number of people can enter heaven so he probably hopes that gays go to hell to make more room for his kind!
Aside from that crap, gay marriage is a fruitless endeavor that will only cost taxpayers plenty more in the end!
Nothing says "Exit Only, Do Not Enter" better than a good old fashioned venereal disease. And I don't think kids should grow up in an environment where regular anal penetration is considered the norm!
Bud, apparently more heterosexuals are having anal sex than homosexuals are.
Hey ErinNJ!
That's entirely possible, not sure if you are right, but since the population is mostly heterosexual I'm sure there's gonna be some tailpipe activity going on in there somewhere! I tried it once, and got a bad urinary tract infection!
Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. And kids can go their whole lives and not know if their parents engaged in it, but with gay marriage, it's pretty obvious what's going on!
I bet 20 years from now, the state will get slammed with lawsuits claiming that they denied kids their right to a mother AND a father.
Exactly why is it "wrong," Bud? Because YOU say so?
And you know, anal sex is not the ONLY option homosexuals have -- think about it (if you're capable of that).
Yes, Erin, because I say so! How long can you keep this lack of concern for children M.O. going?
It is not a "lack of concern," Bud, it is the knowledge that gay couples are just as good at parenting as straight ones.
Good thing we don't all to live by YOUR rules, bigot.
"...it is the knowledge that gay couples are just as good at parenting as straight ones."
And where is the clinical and forensic evidence to back up such a silly remark? Your "knowledge" is more of an assumption. "Never assume... when you do you make an 'ass' outta 'u' and 'me'!"
This is funny.
I always laugh when business "leaders" do STUPID things.
King and Spalding bared their souls for all to see.
#1 They are liars. They back out of a deal for next to nothing. Potential clients HATE that!
#2 They broke a contract. The business WORLD.....HATES that!
#3 The majority of potential clients who agree with DOMA....will now actively BOYCOTT K & S!
They will feel the pinch for this outrage.
Stupid lawyers...in the end....ALWAYS get what they deserve. Heh Heh.
For once the "greedy" lawyers did the right thing and stood up for justice and equality (even if it did mean losing a lucrative contract)! They should be applauded by everyone who believes discrimination is wrong!
These greedy lawyers did what they did over greed itself! Not because they stood up for justice and equality. They thought that if they stood by DOMA it would hurt their public image and their future cash flow! Get a grip on reality TJB!
If they were greedy as you indicate, they would have kept the contract. They would not give a damn what people thought about the merits of the case or their "image". In the near future (10-20 years) gay marriage will be the law of the land (legally available to all that wish to have one). and people will question what all the fuss was about. People can choose to be on the wrong side of history.
TJB, $500k is PEANUTS for these folks. King and Spalding felt that they are going to lose way more in future clientele after they are slandered by the media as bigots! In 10 to 20 years the state will be slammed with lawsuits about how the state denied kids the right to have a mother AND a father... Probably around the same time our Social Security dries up because gay marriage exploited the funds available to sustain itself.
Congratulations to King & Spalding for doing the right thing. DOMA is indefensible.
Congratulations to Paul Clement for being a standup guy and leaving K&S for being such pussies in the wake of political adversaries!
Bud, King & Spaulding obviously does not choose to be on the wrong side of history by defending the indefensible; i.e., unconstitutional laws like DOMA. Paul Clementi is obviously only worried about his $500K paycheck, as well as his own ego.
Erin,
$500k is peanuts to these people. King and Spalding feel that they have more to loose in future clientele and ran for the hills. They feel that the measly $500k is not worth the bad press this position will garner. While Paul Clement is a man of integrity who is willing to SHARE the MEASLY $500k with his new legal team with regard to this matter. Lawyers are always in a position where they might have to defend some unsavory characters if the money is right... apparently $500k was not enough to buy the loyalty of K and S.
Paul Clementi is hardly a "man of integrity," as he intends to defend the indefensible -- so he is either a homophobe, or only cares about the money, or both. Either way, good riddance to him from the firm, and may the House Repuglicans get what's coming to them (and I'm sure they will).
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, this is just too funny. The Repubs and the baggers are loosers........lame, out of date loosers.
Beam me up Scottie! There is no way this planet is ready to join the Federation.
Spock
"we" want it to be call a marriage because nobody wants to be "civil unioned"...blows me away that there is even an issue such as this magnitude in the world today. so many see the birther issue as a waste of time and money as well as energy...not allowing two consenting same-gender adults the same liberties as heters falls into the same catagory. it doesn't really matter though, the opinions of those on this thread. most certainly, in my lifetime, "us gays" will have our equality..just a matter of time and chipping away at the wall until its' collapse. there is a sense of dignity when two people are recognized in such a significant way. all of those who are willing to approach this level in their relationship should be allowed the opportunity. heters have made a mochery of marriage for scores and scores...60% plus divorce rate...bet we can do much better because we do not carry that smug sense of entitlement "you people" do...
Research in San Francisco points out that Gay couples have a much higher domestic violence rate than any other demographic as well as a higher relationship failure rate due to infidelity... perfect environment for children to be raised in! But I admire your wishful thinking!
I do agree that heterosexual couples have made a mockery of marriage, which should indicate that marriage needs be a harder institution to enter, instead of just opening the floodgates like gay advocates wish to do.
Nice try LesAm!
Cite the link to that "research," Bud. I can't find any reputable studies that show such results.
Can't even give you a "nice try" -- hope you'll settle for EPIC FAIL.
FTW,
The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of "men who have sex with men" (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.
Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.
The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.
In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)
And what about heterosexual women in those relationships? If you are comparing opposite-sex domestic violence to same-sex domestic violence, you must BOTH sexes in your opposite-sex percentages, as they are part of the relationships, too.
According to a study by the American Bar Association, domestic violence among the LGBT community is at about the same level as it is in the heterosexual community.
Still an EPIC FAIL.
That should have read "...you must include BOTH sexes in your opposite-sex percentages, as they are part of the relationships, too."
"Still an EPIC FAIL." - ErinNJ
I like you! You are EPIC too! You go girl! I wish we could hang! I read in a CNN article that many same sex relationship battery cases go unreported as such because police usually dismiss them as 'two guy's having a couch squabble.'
this is what the blacks had to go through to gain some equality, now its the gays turn and then it will then flow down hill to the.....fill in the blank
Blacks are a racial minority. Gays are a special interest group, like polygamists.
Apples and Oranges!
"...and then it will then flow down hill to the.....fill in the blank" - LezAm.
If you are talking about the state of this country, you are correct! After gay advocates legalize same sex marriage, this country surely will "flow down hill to the 'sewer'!"
Actually, Bud, comparing gays to polygamists is apples to oranges, as sexual orientation is inborn, while a practice like taking multiple spouses is not. Being gay has as much to do with biology as being black does, and gays are definitely a minority.
Not allowing equal rights for all is what will send this country to the sewer.
That's what the NAMBLA guy said too! That his love for little boys was inborn! Maybe he is being truthful
See, marriage is a highly regulated institution and needs to be, and the gays are not being singled out here.
Homosexual organizations are not affiliated with NAMBLA, as NAMBLA is promoting something illegal, and homosexuality is legal, Bud.
Marriage will continue to be regulated when gays are allowed to marry; what makes you think it won't be?
Thanks for your input, Erin. You've made a great case in a world where bigots feel free to not only express their bigotry but expect it to prevail.
NAMBLA stands for men and boys relationships---that is illegal
all NAMBLA members should be put on a watch list, and have their phones tapped,internet monitored, and be placed on the sexual predators list.
John B and Company,
I really applaud your group's strategy and tenacity. It is really effective I'm sure! Nobody in their right mind wants to be labeled as a "bigot" and from what I've seen on forums such as this, people CANNOT disagree with you people without being called one.
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I've heard both sides of the argument ad nauseam, I have no hatred or intolerance, merely an opinion. Both sides make some really strong points which we have discussed ad nauseam. I'm pretty darn comfortable where I stand on this issue. At one point I was almost tempted to change my stance, but I finally realized that people do need to think for themselves without being bullied by such blunt political tactics.
You've described yourself very well, Bud.
What "group" do you think I belong to, exactly? You don't have a clue who I am, or how I live my life.
Bud, what really makes people like you bigots is that you expect EVERYONE to live by YOUR rules. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinions and your own set of rules, you are not entitled to inflict them on the rest of us with the force of law.
John B, Des Moines, IA
"Thanks for your input, Erin. You've made a great case in a world where bigots feel free to not only express their bigotry but expect it to prevail."
...Uhmmm, that group John. What, this statement isn't a clue? I think you need to get a clue!
Erin, I can easily say the same thing about you and the definition of Bigot seems to fit SSM advocates just as easily. "You expect EVERYONE to live by YOUR rules." Did you hear me complaining when gay people decided to go and desecrate the rainbow symbol for the benefit of the gay community? Did gay people check to see if that action might be offensive? It seems that gay people are the one's who feel "entitled to inflict" whatever the hell they see fit on the rest of us.
I haven't voted one way or the other on the subject so I haven't inflicted anything on anybody. So far, I'm just an observer and I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.
Nope, you just feel entitled to loudly express your views that the rights of others should be subject to your delicate sensibilities. They should live their lives the way YOU want them to becuase you said so. Even your statement about "desecrating the rainbow" says something about your opinion of gays, and that your limitations on living as a homosexual would go WAY farther then just denial of marriage rights if you had your way.
Bigot.
John, I didn't realize that my text had a volume meter. As Erin pointed out, homosexuality IS legal everywhere, so by all means, go out and be free to live it up John. You are making big assumptions with the statements you make. I'm all for you going out and exploring your sexuality. But I'm not the one trying to change and institution that's been around since time immemorial. Who's forcing who?
I like how you signed your name at the end too: "Bigot."
There you go with your assumptions, Bud. I've been married to the same woman for 25 years, raised 2 sons, and have never had a sexual encounter with another man.
What I did have was a roommate many years ago who felt the need to come out of the closet. When he said "I'm homosexual" I chuckled and looked out the window. "I mean it", he replied. I thought for a long time, seemed like 30 seconds, and couldn't come up with a single reason to care. It literally had no impact on my life. "OK", I said. He's been with the same partner for 17 years and we remain in occasional contact.
I just don't see the need to be a bigot, unlike yourself.
Oh, but you are a bigot. By definition, you are "intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions" AND you have reacted to my opinions "with hatred and intolerance" by calling me a bigot. Who's the bigger bigot now John?
I didn't assume anything John, you are the one making assumptions about how I'm trying to restrict freedoms... I never inferred that you were gay. But if you did have those sexual preferences, then who am I to stand in the way of your desires.
Did you remember to say "I'm rubber, you're glue?"
Pointing out bigotry isn't bigotry. Nice try.
John, it sounds like you are quite the homophobe if you are worried about me assuming that you are gay. Even going to the extreme of telling me your life history with your wife and kids, and your quaint little story about your gay roommate coming out of the closet.
"It literally had no impact on my life..."
Gays engaging in homosexual relationships doesn't really "impact" my life either. Like I said, I'm supportive of an environment where people are free to explore their sexuality. What does impact my life, and your life, is when gays want to get married, because it will most definitely put a strain on the already burdened institution of Social Security which will no doubt be exploited by people who will try to game the system. Just one example...
And yet you're afraid of the possibility that same sex partners might be allowed to marry and even bringing pedophilia into the conversation. Too late to walk it back, Bud. Goodbye.
Goodbye John! Run! Run like hell, but there's no escaping your homosexual desires John! I hope you get over your homophobia, sounds like you missed a great opportunity to explore it with your former roomie and now you feel trapped in a loveless marriage!
I see straw men burning.
"Marriage will continue to be regulated when gays are allowed to marry; what makes you think it won't be?" -ErinNJ
When men are allowed to marry other men and women are allowed to marry other women, then why legally stop brothers from marrying sisters, or 2 men from marrying 5 women? I still think that Adam Kolasinski makes some very relevant remarks in his secular case article.
Same sex marriage advocates seem to think that this issue is no big deal and years from now there will be no backlash. I don't mean to get off subject much, but having had the experience of starting a small business, you hope for the best and try to be optimistic about how things are going to turn out, but if Murphy's law has taught me anything, it is that the worst case scenario can and will inevitably happen, and sometimes there is no way to adequately prepare for the consequences. This government seems to be walking a fine line as far as maintaining the economy. Social security benefits have been frequently rumored to be a failing institution. When people exploit the system which already seems to be hanging by a thread, is my 85 year old, wheelchair bound father gonna have to go out and get a job because Social Security failed? And don't try to tell me there won't be any lawsuits from kids who sue the state over being denied the right to a father and a mother because it is bound to happen.
Why should we allow hetro marriage? Brothers and sisters will be marrying next!
Next we'll have men wanting to marry their neighbour's female dog!
Next we'll have to allow pologamy because a man wants to marry multiple wives!
This is how crazy you sound.
That did not happen.
Why is it going to happen now?
"Still crazy after all these years, whoa, still crazy after all these years!"
Oh, yes, the old slippery slope arguments: if you allow homosexuals to marry, then next the bestialists will be allowed to, and the child molesters/pedophiles, the polygamists, etc.
The reason such arguments ALWAYS fail, Bud, is because 1) bestiality is illegal in most states, and marriage with animals is illegal EVERYWHERE because animals cannot legally consent and cannot enter into contracts; 2) child molestation/pedophilia is illegal EVERYWHERE because children are under the age of consent and therefore cannot enter into contracts and are therefore VICTIMS; 3) polygamy is illegal EVERYWHERE in this country; 4) homosexuality is LEGAL EVERYWHERE in this country; 5) gay marriage does not involved animals, children, or multiple spouses -- it involves TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who happen to be of the same gender; 6) bestiality and child molestation/pedophilia would have to be legalized FIRST and only after that occurred could those practitioners mount a campaign for the right to marry; 7) the right to engage in polygamy has been challenged in court numerous times under the First Amendment and the Supreme Court has yet to find polygamy constitutional.
Adam Kolasinski is a professor of finance and economics; he is not a psychologist, sociologist, or expert on human relations or the law. Yet you would take his "research" as reliable and credible? That is called "grasping at straws," Bud, and you seem to be an expert at it. Kolasinki's "findings" have been debunked by numerous other people; you can read one of those articles here. And Judge Vaughn Walker, in the Proposition 8 case in California, pretty much answered all of Kolasinski's points in his ruling, but the number one rebuttal to it is that no state requires proof of either intent or ability to procreate as criteria for obtaining a marriage license; in other words, marriage license are granted to the elderly, the infertile, and couples who do not wish to have children, so all of Kolasinski's nonsense about procreation and the "compelling state interest" in furthering it are just that: nonsense. You can read Judge Walker's ruling here.
Your "arguments" are still at the EPIC FAIL level; would you like to try for Level Three of EPIC FAIL?
Erin,
Brother and sister can fit into the TWO CONSENTING ADULTS category... if two women can marry, then why can't I marry my sister? You seemed to have side-stepped that one. There have been studies which claim that birth defects relating to incest is actually pretty rare, so what's the deal?
We've been thru the "Squashed" rebuttal... doesn't quite do it for me. Just because Kolasinski doesn't posses the academic criteria you are looking for doesn't mean he didn't write a solid argument with some key points. Also, you seem side-step other key issues related to the backlash associated with gay marriage, like the welfare of Social Security which will certainly be exploited. Also, the lawsuits against the state with regards to denying kids the right to a mother and father. EPIC FAIL ERIN... has a nice ring!
My dog asked me to marry her last night. Who will perform the ceremony?
Oh, right, brother and sister -- and incest is illegal EVERYWHERE, as well as relatives marrying (up to a certain level of distance in the relationship), due to genetic and medical disorders/tendencies that occur more frequently in those unions. Another slippery slope argument, as such relationships are illegal, so they would have to first get legal recognition BEFORE they can even petition for the right to marry.
Kolasinski's "Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" may do it for you, but the fact that he does not have the credentials to back up his "research" -- or any "research" at all -- is a big indicator as to why his views have not been submitted as evidence to support anti-gay marriage laws, nor has he been called as an "expert" to testify in such cases: because no foundation exists for him or his "findings" and neither they nor he are credible.
What lawsuits against the state are you talking about? There is ample evidence from the medical and scientific communities that already debunks the "every child needs a mother and a father" claptrap, including testimony by an expert in the Proposition 8 trial:
In addition, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers issued the following statement in 2006:
Kolasinski relies primarily on the issue of procreation for his views, and procreation is not required for marriage in this country, and the courts have found that the state has no compelling state interest in furthering procreation, contrary to Kolasinski's opinion.
Well, you've achieved EPIC FAIL Level Three, and are fast sinking to Level Five with this bull@!$%# (it's so ridiculous that you've bypassed Level Four completely).
Still on that slippery slope!
(my reply below, sorry!)
Also Erin,
"Adam Kolasinski is a professor of finance and economics..."
Kolasinski, being a professor of finance and economics, has a very relevant opinion in this argument when it comes to issue such as "Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage."
He may have a "relevant opinion" on the financial aspects of marriage in general, but he based the majority of his reasons against gay marriage on procreation. Furthermore, he failed to address the approximately 1,100 federal benefits that attach to marriage -- instead he concentrated briefly on the area of his expertise, and substantially on an area where he clearly has no authority or insight.
Nothing, I guess. I find incest immoral, but I'm not convinced it should be illegal except in cases where abuse of power is all but unavoidable (say, when a parent marries an adult child, or one of the participants is found to be mentally incompetent by current legal evaluation). And I have often vocally supported polygamy--in all its forms (polyandry, polygyny, even freeform polyandry)--being legal (I also don't find it particularly immoral, though I can't really think of why anyone would do it--the thrill of sexual variety doesn't strike me as being worth having that many more paths for potential conflict, let alone the nuances of tax law under such circumstances).
Erin, you are the EPIC FAIL NAZI! What, I don't get a level 4 attempt?
I really love how you express yourself, no joke! You are awesome!
I don't need Kolasinski to support my views on procreation. I'm entitled to my opinion that marriage should be for procreation... just because western civilization has downplayed that role over the past century doesn't disqualify it as a valid point.
I guess I'll just get out my snowboard and ride this "slippery slope!"
Erin, regardless of whatever research you have, and to which there is contrary research to, there will inevitably be people who will sue the state because they felt that they were denied a mother AND a father... It's bound to happen. Always going to be people who exploit the system. Even if the people had perfectly decent gay parents and a fine upbringing. And Social Security will most certainly crumble due to this exploitation brought about by SSM. There is already speculation that it will fail in its current state, without the help of SSM. Like I said in previous forums, people think that this issue is no big deal and years from now we will wonder what the big deal was about, but backlash is inevitable.
Social Security has been "crumbling" for a long time now; it is not the homosexual community's fault, nor is it the fault of their quest for the right to marry. There is a lot more to marriage than collecting Social Security benefits -- there are approximately 1,100 rights that attach to marriage, so Social Security is small potatoes compared what else is at stake.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on gay marriage, but the preponderance of facts and research do not bear you or people like you and Kolasinski out, which is why the courts have been siding with the gay community on civil rights issues like this. And you are not entitled to force the rest of us to live as YOU believe.
"Well, you've achieved EPIC FAIL Level Three, and are fast sinking to Level Five with this bull@!$%# (it's so ridiculous that you've bypassed Level Four completely)."
Erin, this statement is so funny! Every time I think of it I'm ROFLMAO! Genius! Did you come up with this sh*t on the fly? This could be adapted somehow... it's golden!
I think that whenever I stumble in life, now there will always be this voice in my head saying,
"Well, you've achieved EPIC FAIL Level Three, and are fast sinking to Level Five with this bull@!$%# (it's so ridiculous that you've bypassed Level Four completely)."
Thank You!