Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

Published on March 3, 2009 By ZubaZ In Politics

I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)

I support the suit.

Over the past six years I've had the honor of officiating five weddings in Texas. I firmly believe that the ceremonies I performed had very little to do with the state. Each was a social or religious agreement between two people to be together forever. The state had no place there.

Where I believe the state has a place is in a separate, legal situation recognizing a contract between these same two people for the purpose of maintaining property, securing benefits, and situations dealing with children. The state should be there to record that a contract exists between these people. The state should *not* call it marriage.

In my magic world, the two events would be made separate. If your faith allowed gay marriages; great! If it didn't; great too! Same for your state governments. And the federal government . . their job is to interfere with the states as little as possible. If a state says that a legal contract exists . . then that is that. Recognize baby!

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The act itself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

Comments (Page 6)

EL-DUDERINO

on Mar 05, 2009

Nice post Doc. Thanks for sharing.

I second the notion.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

LEAUKI POSTS# 55

The story is about hospitality. Angels came to Lot in the city of Sodom and didn't expect much hospitality but Lot insisted. Then the other townspeople came and asked to see (know) the strangers. Lot protected his guests and offered the townspeople them their way with his daughters instead. But it doesn't say anything about them wanting to see the strangers for the purpose you are thinking of.

The word is "venada3ah" and it means "and we knew" (but the "and" turns the tense around and hence it is "and we will know"). The verb "leda3at" ("to know") sometimes means "have sex with", but it depends on the context. When Abraham "knows" his wife, I know it means "have sex with". But that's where it ends. The word rarely means "have sex with" and it does require the assumption that the context is about sex to read it that way.

KFC POSTS:

It's not about hospitality at all. Not even close.

You are right, KFC, the Divine judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was due in part to the sin of immorality, and sodomy in particular. In Genesis 18:20, God had already said that the sin of the cities was "exceedingly grave" and this was even before the 2 Angels showed up in Sodom that the Lord had already targeted these 2 cities for destruction. Remember v. 23....the Divine intention to "sweep away" all who lived there was what led Abraham to plead for mercy. Saying that the "exceedingly grave" sin was inhospitality is the new way, the politically correct way of presenting the great sin of Sodom. Saying it means inhospitality is an attempt to condone something that Sacred Scripture clearly condemns.

Leauki,

Yes, indeed, the Hebrew word translated "to know" in this verse refers to sex. To say that the townsmen simply wanted to know in the sense of merely become acquainted or meet with Lot's guests is ludicruous...especially when in v. 7, Lot responded to the initial request by beseeching the men, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly."

leauki posts #64

I'm afraid it's the traditional rabbinic viewpoint. And I am positive that it makes a lot of sense to anyone who doesn't have an irrational fear of homosexuality.

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw this."

Rabbi Nachmanides wrote in the 13th century CE:

"According to our sages, they were notorious for every evil, but their fate was sealed for their persistence in not supporting the poor and the needy."

KFC POSTS:

where does it say anything in there about the poor and needy? .........
Your rabbi says it has to do with the poor and needy? That makes sense to you?

Yes, KFC, it makes sense when you take the Bible as a whole.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 and Genesis are in agreement for Ezekiel doesn't ignore the issue of homosexuality at all. Here Ezekiel addresses the sins of Israel by pointing to the sins of Sodom and links Sodom's judgment to the city's pride and luxurious lifestyle and the inhabitant's refusal to help those in need. Ezekiel references the fact that Sodom "committed abominations" before God is no doubt a reference to the inhabitant's homosexuality, especially with the story in Genesis in the minds of Ezekiel's hearers. The Jews well understood "abomination" as a commom way of referring to sexual sin like sodomy. Lev. 18:22.

Ezekiel's reference to Sodom adds to the Genesis account. The "arrogant self-indulgence" of Sodom's citizens contributed to the sexual perversion. Ezekiel 16: 10-14 lays out Isreal's harlotries and abominations as tied to the unfaithful nation's own wealth and material blessings...luxury and arrogance can lead therefore to sexual perversion and that was the precise impact of Ezekiel's reference to Sodom.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

KFC POSTS:

It's not PC to bring up Sodom is it? What is the definition of Sodomy?

leauki posts:

The modern meaning (in the last few centuries) is "deviant sexual intercourse", its original meaning was "acts of wickedness" and it referred to all the wicked acts of the people of Sodom.

I believe Islam believes in the same connection between Lot and homosexuality as you do. But I'm afraid that is the revisionism. The original tale just speaks of inhospitality, it took hundreds of years to make it into a story about homosexuality and another thousand to change the meaning of the word.

C'mon Leauki, who are you trying to fool? That Sodom was destroyed for inhospitable treatment is just not convincing. It's just an attempt to deflect away from the horror of the judgment upon homosexuality.

The word "sodomy" refers to unnatural sex acts and is derived from the name of the ancient city of Sodom.

Once you read 2St.Peter 2 and St.Jude 7, there is no legitimate way to remove homosexuality from the list of sins that doomed Sodom and Gomorrah.

ZubaZ

on Mar 05, 2009

I really must have rode the short bus . . but I fail to see how a Christian story relates to the topic.

I mean . . it's sorta interesting . . but not really pertinent to the conversation, is it? Is the arguement now that a god said homosexual sex is bad? That makes your disagreement with same-sex marriage OK? The government *should* be involved?

Let me rephrase for my own clarity and you can fill in:

"The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________"

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

zubaz posts:

We've gone a bit off track . . but theses things do happen.

Sorry about that.

leauki posts# 71

What homosexuals do to each other with their consent is between them and G-d. And a path that keeps me away from judging them is certainly the right path.

Yes, we are not to judge or speculate about the state of the person's heart or souls...that's only God's job. It's homosexuality, an objectively evil act, that is being judged and measured as unacceptable, not homosexual persons.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

I fail to see how a Christian story relates to the topic.

I mean . . it's sorta interesting . . but not really pertinent to the conversation, is it? Is the arguement now that a god said homosexual sex is bad? That makes your disagreement with same-sex marriage OK? The government *should* be involved?

Yes to all three questions. And since God comdemns homosexuality, we therefore must do the same unless we want unhappiness and chaos.

There are certain truths or foundational principles upon which everything created by God operates. Contained in these truths and principles is a group of 3 instiutions of delegated authority established by God. Each of these is intended to guide a specific area of man's function while we live here on earth. A good understanding of these institutions will ensure the well-being of any society or government.

The first and most fundamental and essential institution of delegated authority created and established by God is the family. The second is the Church and the third is the arena of civil government. Romans 13:1 spells it all out, starting with "Let every living soul (which means all mankind) be subject to the governing authority." The power of this earthly institution is delegated by God for a purpose and ultimately for our own good.

St.Paul says in V. 2, "Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves." Such authority is not absolute since it's delegated to humans who are capable of misusing it. But the one entrusted with that authority must exercise it in a manner God intended. To oppose it is to oppose God.

V. 3 says that For rulers are not a terror to good works, but a terror to evil...." So, civil authority is ordained by God to be a terror to evil.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

Let me rephrase for my own clarity and you can fill in:

"The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________"

Becasue civil authority is ordained by God to be a terror to evil.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

ElDuderino posts #60

How sacred is the institution when the divorce rate hovers around 50%? I'm sorry but I just don't buy this argument at all.

Marriage is and will always be a sacred institution becasue it was established by God in the Garden of Paradise with Adam and Eve. It's man (the modern State) who commands marriages be declared null and void by divorce and ultimately perverts the institution of marriage.

How sacred is the institution when the divorce rate hovers around 50%? I'm sorry but I just don't buy this argument at all. I don't see how homosexual relationships are going to affect the stability of the family.

The family is the firstmost fundamental and essential institution created by God. It bases are the sexual affection between a man and a woman and their nurturing relationship to any children their conjugal union produces. Becasue the body parts don't fit, homosexuals can't produce children.

Under God, the family operating in good order is a vital element necessary for societal and cultural health. In general, both divorce and homosexuality negatively effect the proper functioning of the family and when families aren't functioning properly, welose the institution which supplies stability and the ingredients which produce social health in the larger community. The parents are responsible before God to raise, correct, love and educate their children and God has delegated authority to the parents to accomplish this.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

Really? Traditional marriage and the rearing of children has been the bedrock of civilizations since the beginning of time.

EL-Duderino posts:
So what? Why does that mean that it isn't time to change. Convential thinking for centuries was that the earth was flat, so why not expand our horizons by allowing gay marriage?

You are confused about what marriage and family mean and their significance to keeping civilizations going.

The meaning of marriage and family isn't something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and a wise society will do all it can to protect marriage as its always been understood. Stray from God's design and trouble, unhappiness, disorder and chaos ensues.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

It's absurd for a society to turn traditional marriage, the most ancient of institutions, the bedrock of civilizations, on its head for a few (maybe 3% of the general population) who practice a form of sexual aberration.

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

You call it an aberration but for homosexuals it isn't. For nature it isn't, chimpanzees (genetically very similar to humans) tend to be bi-sexual.

As far as nature is concerned, since the body parts don't fit, homosexuality is unnatural.

As far as chimpanzees, in the wild, homosexuality is an exception to normal behavior. Now, in varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances and the times we most often see chimpanzees acting out homosexuality is when they are confined to zoos. Isn't the homosexuality rate much higher when people are confined to prisons?

lulapilgrim

on Mar 05, 2009

There are lots of loving commitments that aren't marriage.

EL-Duderino posts:

None that have the same legal ramifications as marriage which is where the real argument here lies.

And rightly so. Since society's survival is tied to a thriving family firmly established in marriage, justice requires it.

ZubaZ

on Mar 05, 2009

Isn't the homosexuality rate much higher when people are confined to prisons?

I feel somewhat dirty making the reference .. but at least I can blame the wine . . .

Any port in a storm.

OK. Now that I'm done being 12 years old again. Prison sex does not equal love; homosexual or otherwise. I'm marking that up to a flawed and failed syllogism. Move along.

Also . . in regards to parts not fitting; I do not believe that a marriage or civil union requiers sex. I hope that my grandparents are done with that part of their lives (ewww) but are still married. Right?

Lastly (I think), the arguement that God sanctified marriage only works if you believe in a god. Should the state have a stance there? Do you really, truely want teh state involved in matters of faith? Do you really believe that civil authority is ordained by God? All civil authority? Throught history?

taltamir

on Mar 05, 2009

sorry for being a bit late... but sodom and gemorrah? come on people, you have to be retarded to think this was about homosexuality... God wasn't even gonna do anything until after they tried to gang rape a pair of angels (who also happened to be guests, I guess rape is against the laws of hospitality)

taltamir

on Mar 05, 2009

sex =! love. Period... gay or straight the two are not synonamous..

But consentual homosexuality and prison rape are completely different things. And also completely unrelated to the issue of gay marriage.

Saying gay marriage legitimized gay rape is as rediculous as saying hetro marriage legitimizes hetrosexual rape. It just doesn't, they are unrelated.

ZubaZ

on Mar 05, 2009

Saying gay marriage legitimized gay rape is as rediculous as saying hetro marriage legitimizes hetrosexual rape. It just doesn't, they are unrelated.

A bit crass . . but spot on!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!