Remove all tax benefits or penalties for marriage. Treat everyone as individuals. Why should I subsidize large families that get greater deductions because of their personal choices? Get government out of marriage all together. Let townships, judges, justices, or lawyers issue only civil contracts to be signed and witnessed by a notary. This would insure equal legal rights, such as inheritance, etc. Marriage certificates should be issued by churches and be of no consequence under the law, unless accompanied by a legal contract. I have no objections to personal behavior in one's own bedroom; it is not my business.

I object only to the blurring of the definition of words. Haven't we had enough of that? A horse is a horse. A donkey is a donkey. A combination is a mule. If they wish a new name for their particular union let them coin one. I will be happy to adopt whatever word they find pleasing so long as it is unique and differentiates. When someone tells me they are married, I naturally assume a particular traditional meaning of the word. Equal legal rights and benefits by contract period. End of problem. Why is compromise so difficult for the in your face crowd? It is like the obscene behavior in public at gay pride parades, that if exhibited among heteros would land them in jail. Get a room people.

For the record, I have great relationships with one family member and their partner that I know of and two friends that are gay. They are not extremist militants like the in your face crowd, demanding their relationship is the same. It may be normal for them, but I believe they understand it is different. They still observe the same public mores as are considered acceptable for all. To each his own, just don't confuse me please. When John tells me he is "married" I don't want to be embarrassed when I meet his boyfriend after assuming and saying something silly.

The second question before the Court, whether states need to give full faith and credit to marriages from other states, is very much a federal question. In my state, until very recently, a gay couple lawfully married in another state could not get a divorce here. That means issues of alimony, and division of property and debts could not be legally resolved. The question of whether that was constitutionally permissible was a federal one, the very one now being considered by the Court.

Marriage licenses are issue by the individual state. It is not a Federal (Constitutional) question.

I think the reason the state is concerned in mar-
riage in the first place is that a union between a man and a woman can result in the creation of a
child; children need to be reared in a structured en-
vironment; that is, they cannot be allowed to run
the streets committing crimes and being them-
selves the victims of crime; so it needs to be
clear who is raising them and who has control
over them. Still, the law does not restrict mar-
riage to those who can procreate; people too old
to reproduce are nevertheless allowed to marry
(I read some years ago about some country in
Europe where a couple was denied a license on
those grounds); but still, I think that that shows
what is biologically natural, and, if it is male and
female, it is not being unnatural, even if no child-
ren can occur. But homosexuals should still be
allowed to do what they want in the privacy of
their own home(s), as long as it is between(or
among) only consenting adults and no third
party's (such as a spouse's,for instance) rights
are violated. But I do not think it is the govern-
ment's job to put its stamp of approval on un-
natural practices.--But perhaps civil unions be-
tween homosexuals should be provided for,
for inheritance rights, hospital visits, and so
forth.

Govt should be out of any marriage. Because of lawsuits, there should be a contract and get rid of the notion of a licence. I should not need to get permission from govt.

From the artticle; "The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society."

So to justice Scalia, "some sort of harm to society" is the standard by which a decision should be made, ignoring whether it is right or wrong.

" “People will feel disenfranchised” if they don’t get a chance to vote on such an important question, he said." And the deciding factor should be a majority vote? So it should be turned over to the mob to decide.

The government is only interested in marriage for the purpose of control. Marriage is only tied to the government through the IRS via tax status rules. Cut that link and marriage goes back to being a contract and any "legal definition" of the word becomes irrelevant.

This doesn't belong at the Federal Level, it is a people and/or state issue. Those that send it to the Federal level are very misguided about how America under her Constitution works!

I agree.
Similar moves are being made in my state. But I think resistance will be made to hang on to revenue.
We already have a second-term GOP governor going RINO to raise taxes due not having enough $ for "needed" spending.

http://www.waaytv.com/appnews/new-bill-w...

"They" are not that deep in their thinking to "destroy our culture". Their intent is simply to promote and allow only "their" culture... very simple (when does life begin?)!!!! Though I believe (hope) that the question was rhetorical, the distant the "governing class" will go is as long as you allow them... Missionary position only, between 9pm and 11pm so you don't run the risk of traumatizing the children in earlier hours AND you don't disturb the neighbors after 11pm... It is only FAIR!!!! I'm gay and this pisses me off!

This argument is a red herring because the Federal government has no authority over this. There is no interstate commerce nexus here, and it does not run afoul of the equal protection clause.

Why you say….. because under current marriage laws all people are treated equally. IE: Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both have the same marriage rights under every state law. As a heterosexual male I can marry any Woman I want but not a man, Homosexual Males also can marry any woman they want but not a man. That my friend’s is equal protection...we are treated the same way by the law. You may wish there was homosexual marriage but the law to authorize that does not exist, just like there is no law that authorizes me to marry a sheep or 2 women….or a tree!
If you want a law like that in your state….get one passed through the state legislature…or move to a state where you like the laws.

He should have asked why the government was involved at all in approving of the peoples relationships. Contracts for civil matters and marriages for religious/social matters.

" He asked attorney Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of same-sex marriage,
if it was true that homosexual relationships but not marriages were sanctioned by those cultures.
When she said yes, Scalia continued, “So their exclusion of same-sex marriage was not due to prejudice, right?”
Adding, unless she considered Plato prejudiced. "

A good point. As well as old Greece and Rome, several other cultures had tolerant and even favorable opinions on homosexuality, often with militarism. None of them widened the rules on marriage.

So how far does the governing class want to go? To limit the relation to humans is speciesist.
If -love conquers all- then why not several persons (err members). If nothing to do with procreation then grandfathers and grandsons ok, twins ok, and why not be in more than one marriage concurrently? There are two themes here- fuzzy thinking, and logic, the logic being the intention to destroy our culture.

don't you think that it would be worth a glance, for
perspective's sake? -- j

p.s. conservatism, for me, means conserving value.

While certainly much good (as well as bad) came from ancient Greece, say, Aristotle as an example of the good, appealing to ancient Greece and Roman traditions in modern America, especially in the Supreme Court, is conservatism at its worst.

hear, hear! . just as long as I can't have a marriage
contract with the 160-year-old oak tree in the front yard. -- j

http://newsok.com/house-passes-bill-to-a...

As it should be.

I can't understand why this red herring still exists. It is like a litmus test for conservative/religious vs. liberal/secular. All people should have equal protection under the law which includes tax/estate laws. Churches are the only institution that gives a damn about marriage in the eyes of God and what they do is no business of government. Couples enter into a civil union contract or a combination church approved and civil union contract and they are treated equally, end of problem. How or if they have sex is strictly a private matter in my opinion. I don't think the Greeks and Romans had our tax code to deal with or they would have figured it out.