Gay Couples Can Immigrate Under DOMA Ruling

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, June 26, 2013

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional should immediately open up immigration benefits to same-sex partners in states where their unions are recognized as marriages.

The 5-4 decision ruled that federal benefits pertaining to marriage couples cannot be denied to same-sex couples who are married, and that states can recognize those marriages. The issue at hand was an inheritance case, but analysts said the ruling signals the same principle applies to all federal benefits such as Social Security and taxes.

{snip}

Gay and lesbian couples had become a major flashpoint in the immigration debate now on the floor of the Senate. Democrats had said they wanted to use the debate to extend immigration benefits to same-sex couples, but Republicans had warned that would break up the tenuous coalition backing the bill by scaring off Catholic and Evangelical supporters.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • John Smith

    The homosexual lobby’s push to redefine marriage to include homosexual marriages have found strategic utility in packaging their demands using the rhetoric and images of the civil rights movement. This strategy is obviously a shameless and blatant hijacking of a movement seeking the legitimate acceptance by society and government of racial equality in order to further their goal of pressuring societal and governmental acceptance for their illegitimate perversions. And it looks like their strategy has worked for them to a large extent.

    For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellows campaigners for racial justice facing down dogs and fire hoses? Truly only moral Americans that recognize the deceit and immorality involved would even dare.

    For there is more at stake here than just the moral decline of Christianized Western Civilization. The indiscriminate promotion of non-legitimate group’s desires and preferences as “rights” is draining the moral authority out of the civil rights movement.

    If every perverted immorality, no matter how immoral, is fought on the basis of “civil rights” by their requisite special interest groups: then the moral authority of the entire civil rights movement becomes disassociated from its original legitimate purpose and degraded in the societal conscience eventually perhaps to a point of no return.

    What makes a homosexual activist’s aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a “right”? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given first place be refashioned to accommodate selfish people who actively agitate to integrate around intrinsically non-marital perverted sexual conduct?

    Homosexuals are not part of a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. They are hijacking a movement designed to correct THAT for their own agenda.

    Though they occur incrementally with most people not realizing calamity is at the end of the road; historically, there have always been very real and tangible consequences for a nation in steep moral, societal/cultural, and economic decline. One wonders how can the U.S. be the sole exception to this historical pattern when every moral organization and financial ratings agency has the U.S. with a future NEGATIVE outlook.

    • Actually, there is a valid continuity between the race civil rights agenda and the orientation civil rights agenda. Karl Marx didn’t call the concept of civil rights “a revolution in permanence” as a practical joke. There will always been *-isms to combat, *-phobias to overcome.

      • John Smith

        Karl Marx liked the concept of civil rights beyond race because it afforded him a way to corrupt Democracy via Cultural Marxism. The Frankfurt School certainly figured this out and it’s been a liability for us all ever since.

  • Oh boy, open borders AND LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH, two of the left’s favorite things. No car wreck at this intersectionality today!

  • The__Bobster

    How could so many of these poofters have overseas lovers? I smell a scam.

    • Sick of it

      Much like how our immigration system had been broken via fake marriages performed for the purposes of obtaining citizenship? Surely it couldn’t happen again…

    • “Baht boys”, sex tourism to Thailand (and other countries) is big business.

  • The__Bobster

    Just what we need: foreign-flavored AIDS cases for the taxpayers to support.

  • I’m so fumed that the United States Senate is 68% traitor that I’m not even going to duke it out with you on this point. Not today.

  • borogirl54

    DOMA was a bad law. It is federal interference in issues that clearly belong to the states. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who support traditional marriage, do next to nothing to help troubled marriages to try to prevent divorces. The Evangelical Christian marriage rate is similar to that of non-religious Americans.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      This is blatantly untrue. DOMA took no rights or privileges from the states (as evidenced by the few states which did redefine marriage when DOMA was law). All it did was prevent Fed Gov benefits from going to “couples” of the same sex. In other words, it prevented Washington from recognizing illegitimate and society-destroying unions.

      • DOMA created a full faith and credit exemption, too. SCOTUS allowed that part to stand. Though I think the alphabet gang is going to try to knock that out next, and I think I know the route they’re going to use. I think they’ll get some blue state with gay marriage not to recognize straight marriages from states that don’t do gay marriage. They know some straight married couple from a red state will move to that blue state, find their marriage isn’t legal there, sue, and the issue of there being a full faith and credit exemption for gay but not for straight will be in front of SCOTUS eventually. They’ll use the 14th to declare that dichotomy unconstitutional.

      • borogirl54

        What is wrong with that? One of the plaintiffs was a woman who had to pay an estate tax charged by the State of New York when her lesbian wife died because of DOMA. A heterosexual spouse would not have had to pay such a tax..

  • Look for an increase in “baht boy” type immigration via marriage.
    Then look for and increase in homosexual prostitution in cities.
    Then look for an increase in HIV infection.

    SCOTUS ruling DOMA unconstitutional was this country’s “swan song”.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      It was about as bad as Roe. Nowhere in the constitution (nor common law history) is language granting two homos relationship status.

      • Sick of it

        It was a rare thing even in decadent eastern societies in the ancient past. Despite such relationships existing in Japan for centuries, they could never dare make it public.

      • borogirl54

        It would fall under the right to privacy. Many gay and lesbian couples have children. Should their children continue to feel that they are second class citizens because of who their parents are?

        • newscomments70

          For every one gay couple with children trying to enter the U.S., there will be ten thousand cases of Jose marrying his brother, Hose B to fraudulently claim citizenship.

      • Owen

        “Nowhere in the constitution (nor common law history) is language granting two homos relationship status.”

        Please show me in the Constitution where straight folks are guaranteed federally recognized civil marriages.

        • Sick of it

          You make a good point. It’s time to get rid of civil unions and all government-registered marriages. And the courts can keep from sticking their noses into religious affairs.

        • Eagle_Eyed

          I’m not sure I follow. If you are saying you don’t want an intrusive federal government handing out benefits to certain groups, that’s one thing, however the court didn’t rule that way. It ruled DOMA was unconstitutional not because it was an overstep of FedGov power but because it was discriminatory against homos. Well duh it was discriminatory. That was its point. To codify the long-standing tradition that normative relationships are superior to perverted ones.

          Once the FedGov gets magically libertarian/non-intrusive regarding state’s rights, the right of association, states’ rights to set up religious institutions (as was evident by the state churches at the time of ratification), and begins protecting the union against actual enemies (instead of droning weddings in Yemen and chasing a beta-male leaker half-way across the globe); then I’m all for us looking into reducing benign laws which actually send a positive message like DOMA.

  • sbuffalonative

    Just wait for all the petty grievance lawsuits to start. No one and no business is going to be left unscathed. It’s going to be the tyranny of another minority.

    I can imagine in a few years when all these young kids who supported this grow up and have children. In kindergarten, their children will have a trans-gender as a teacher who will have the force of federal law to keep him as their teacher and the parents will have no recourse.

    Expect a full gay take over of the boy scouts when some kid uses the word f*g and all the boys will be forced to undergo mandatory tolerance training.

    There are many others to come. We’ll just have to wait to see what they are.

    • newscomments70

      I was in the boy scouts in the early 80s. There is no way I would want gay scout masters, now or then, but predators don’t tell you what they’re up to. One of the assistant scout masters was an unmarried 35 year old who liked to “wrestle” with 14 year old boys. He was a predator and eventually arrested for it. He did not identify as gay. He was actually a prison guard and a semi-professional boxer. We could say the word “fag” all day, and he would laugh. He would even join in. Those youth groups will always attract predators, with or without gays. I imagine a gay presence would increase the incidents though.

      • I worked with a single guy a dozen years ago who stopped being a teacher in Nevada and moved to Chicago and went into another field.

        He was apparently in the BSA himself and also involved with the BSA in Chicago and would talk about going on overnight camping trips.

        One time I overheard him on a phone call at work talking to some Scout’s mother saying he had left some CDs at the house that he and a Scout were listening to the night prior.

        I only thought he might be gay before I heard that, at that minute I was certain that he was a gay pedophile and that he was probably fired from his school teaching job and run out of where he lived. So he went to Chicago where he had an uncle – whom he went “antiquing” with on weekends, when he was not camping out with Scouts.

        • newscomments70

          I don’t think that every gay male is a predator, but their rate of dysfunction is higher than heterosexuals. And yes, a grown man who likes to go camping with 14 year olds is a red flag. I’ve even heard gay guys agree with that.

      • sbuffalonative

        That wasn’t really my point.

        I’m sure you USED to use the word but now that homosexuals are members, you can be sure someone is going to be offended and demand redress.

        The Boy Scouts will be condemned as a bastion of historic homophobia. Gays will demand they sit on the board. They will insist the scouts attend sensitivity classes. The scouts fold.

        Wait for it.

        • newscomments70

          Many boys and young men use that word…girls and women as well. If you’re right, they will have quite a big job on their hands.

        • George

          sbuffalo,
          Scouts Canada has explicitly allowed gay youth and adult members since 1993. Twenty years later, the organisation still exists.
          Co-ed Scouting is what led to plummeting membership.

          • sbuffalonative

            Again, I believe you’re missing my point.
            I can’t speak to Scouts in Canada. However, from my reading and hearing news reports by every minority in the US (black, Hispanics, gays, lesbians) there are provocateurs looking to cause trouble over the most trivial of events.
            SOMEONE with an axe to grind IS going to make an issue of SOMETHING that happens with a gay scout.
            I don’t know what it will be or when it will happen but it will happen in the future.
            Will the Scouts be forced to make further accommodations to appease homosexuals? My money is on yes.
            Will the Scouts survive? That depends on how much traction gays can me of the issue and how far the Scouts are willing to compromise.

  • Sick of it

    So many parts of the world accept these horrible practices as normal. Your children will not be any safer.

    • Owen

      Dogbone,
      If you are a married heterosexual it is I, a gay man who can not enter into a government sanctioned federal civil marriage, who is paying your way through life (or at least subsidizing your marriage) via my taxes without any reciprocity. Thats just not right nor is it Constitutional.

      • Sick of it

        I think you were aiming for the guy above me. I’m not fond of government involved in marriage period….no subsidies, no bullying priests.

  • Sick of it

    People are pretty ticked about both.

  • anarchyst

    The so-called “civil-rights (for some)” laws will see to it that homosexuals are accorded “special rights”, not unlike other minorities. If you think “freedom of association” is gone now, wait till the homosexual hustlers start their lawsuits . . .
    Of course, whites are not accorded “civil-rights (for some)” protections. Us whites only have Constitutional rights–NOT “civil-rights (for some)”. . .
    When discussing homosexuals, please do not use the term “gay” to describe them . . . homosexuals perverted what was once a happy word . . .

    • newscomments70

      Oh God, no one has used that word since 1890.

  • Spartacus

    More instant democrats ?

  • The__Bobster

    The legislative package submitted to the Senate also notably does not include the Uniting American Families Act, sponsored by Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy. This measure would have allowed an American citizen or permanent resident who was lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to petition for immigrant status on behalf of his or her same-sex partner as an immediate relative.

    This aspect of the bill is crucial to many Jewish activists. A coalition of nearly 100 New York interfaith leaders, including 37 rabbis, signed a letter to New York Senator Charles Schumer, urging his support for equal protections for LGBT Americans and their families. To their dismay, Schumer convinced his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to drop the measure from the bill, arguing that its inclusion would cost the support of key Republicans. Citing their own head counts, many of the measure’s supporters vehemently reject this argument.

    One victory that was won by Jews is a provision that directly involves Jewish interests: The Lautenberg Amendment, first passed in 1989, granted immigrant status to victims of religious persecution in their native lands. The law allowed the emigration of hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews and was extended in 2004 to cover Christians, Baha’is, Jews and other religious minorities fleeing Iran.

  • borogirl54

    When I heard the news. My heart burst with joy because now gay and lesbian couples will be able to have the same federal benefits as a heterosexual couple does.

    • Coming soon on Broadway, the hot new musical: Entitled to Benefits. Everyone is guaranteed to have a gay ole time. I’m sure it will clean up in next year’s Tony Awards.

      • Eagle_Eyed

        If I didn’t have humor I’d go insane. Thank-you for that…

      • George

        Do you mean ‘Coming soon on Broadway: Entitled to the same treatment as everyone else’?
        I’m with you on most things, QD. The fact is, I question why we should pay benefits to the brownies amongst us whilst withholding the same treatment to whites.

        • Guest

          You are not asking for the same treatment that are given to Non-whites to be given to whites, you are asking for the same treatment that are given to Non-whites to be given to homosexuals.

        • Anna Tree

          Homosexual (whites or) non-whites were not given those benefits. Now thanks to your organizations and the “useful idiots”, they will. You just added a few millions of non-whites immigrants!

        • I really didn’t want to do this now, but you’re begging me.

          The argument I’m making has nothing to do with my own somewhat l*********n propensities on matters of sexual orientation. The argument I’m making has to do with the facts of life. And those are that aside from a few outliers and a small minority therein, LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH won’t be very much receptive to white nationalism or similar political pursuits, simply because they’re not in the business of procreating brand new white people. “Nationalism” has its root in the Latin word meaning “to be born,” and it stands to reason that white nationalism et al. is far more likely to be politically appreciated by the same people who are already the largely unrequited base of the Republican Party, that is, white traditional nuclear families with children. Could we pick up the occasional homosexual who lives in urban areas and is under constant threat from violent and frankly homophobic assaults on the part of the black undertow? Yes. But they’re going to come to us not because we pander to them, and not because we might jettison our “homophobia.” They’ll come to us because we’re already white nationalists et al. And we’ll have to realize and they’ll have to realize that they’ll be pariahs in their own alternate orientation community for having embraced WN et al.

  • Owen

    What does this story have to do with race realism? Im a gay man whose partner had to return to the UK because his visa ran out and we couldnt legally marry and get him residency or citizenship. I am forced to subsidize straight peoples marriages through my taxes so why am I not granted the same choice to enter into a government sanctioned civil marriage? I dont want to force any particular religion to endorse my marriage I just want the right to choose a federal civil marriage and its thousand or so benefits (including immigration) which only straight people currently have access to. Im also a libertarian who would like to see the separation of marriage and state but until that time it is wrong, unconstitutional, and unAmerican to deny an entire class of people the right to civil marriage based on an immutable characteristic like gender or sexual orientation.

    • newscomments70

      For every one legitimate gay couple trying to enter their parnter into the U.S., there will be ten thousand llegals marrying their brothers to enter the country fraudulently. Most people feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Forcing gay marriage on people who don’t want it is undemocratic. Even the voters of liberal California voted down gay marriage. (I believe that was Prop 8). I heard that blacks and hispanics were the deciding factor in voting down gay marriage in CA, by the way. You actually do have the right to marry…but you would have to marry a woman. I respect your freedom of speech and I’m sorry things didn’t work out for you. Lately, I have been trying to immigrate to Australia. It is virtually impossible because I am white and over 40. It sucks and it’s not fair. I guess there is always a way, we just have to be persistent.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      How is your “marriage” beneficial in any way to society? What offspring can you produce? What normative lifestyle are you capable of maintaining?

      • Owen

        As an individualist all I care about is how my marriage would benefit me. As a collectivist you seem to be concerned about how personal relationships benefit the group.

        However, to answer your question my marriage would benefit the collective in the same way that your does. Married couples are happier and healthier and live longer than unmarried people which reduces societal costs for healthcare. Married couples are more affluent than unmarried people and less reliant on public assistance. Marriage creates stability.

        Civil marriage has nothing to do with having children otherwise infertile couples, couples who have no desire to have children, and older couples would be banned from the institution.

        Again, my personal relationship is none of your concern just as yours is none of mine.

        • Anna Tree

          An individualist race realist?!? I think it is kind of an oxymoron, no?Will you surprise me and also say you believe in evolution? Because if so as well, then all IS about benefiting the group. Indeed you are an individual and you need to be happy but not to the detriment of the group. Again, that means you DO have equal rights but NOT special rights.

          All the reasons you gave for marriage are not the real reason of marriage. The real reason of marriage is that married mother and father are the BEST parents.

          Please read “Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children” by Trayce Hansen (I will post it after this)

          • Anna Tree

            Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children
            really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just
            as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as
            it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex.
            Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is
            false. Because love isn’t enough!

            All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married
            mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most
            likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they
            need in order to thrive.

            Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique
            contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the
            other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women
            can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

            So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

            First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are
            qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments.
            Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a
            mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to
            a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other
            can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary
            balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

            Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to
            develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite
            sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a
            child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means
            she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of
            men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the
            converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an
            opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be
            more empathetic and less narcissistic.

            Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary
            developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while
            others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies
            of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are
            more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more
            appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to
            become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead
            identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom
            to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy
            masculine identity.

            A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive
            and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses
            because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A
            father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother
            doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are
            the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to
            become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

            Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are
            times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a
            father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her
            first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a
            girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become
            promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for
            male attention and validation.

            Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their
            children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters
            from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this
            function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless
            children and for the society in which these children act out their
            losses.

            Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help
            them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys
            generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships,
            risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls
            generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child
            keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally
            and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not
            only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s
            world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

            Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and
            sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit
            message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally
            acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional
            homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow
            up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries.
            Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young
            people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have
            contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are
            already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even
            greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality
            role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

            There is no question that human sexuality is pliant.
            Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early
            civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly
            ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a
            “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those
            societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

            And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will
            have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If
            prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing
            polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping
            will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological
            ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches
            and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the
            children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each
            parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers,
            or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

            Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

            The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that
            the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and
            one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using
            children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and
            cataclysmic at worst.

            Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of
            children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to
            be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them
            to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires
            of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

          • George

            Sorry, Anna.
            If we are to recognise the rights of couples to be recognised as such, same sex couples are a part of this.
            We recognise the geriatric, who have no hope of procreation. We recognise couples where one or the other is infertile, or has chosen deliberately not to procreate.
            My boyfriend and I will marry. He and I recognise that there are, indeed, racial differences, and we do what we can to stem the tide.

          • Anna Tree

            I didn’t say the reason for marriage is procreation, I said the reason for marriage is that a married mother and father are the best parents. Therefore geriatric or infertile couples are not contradicting the definition, but 2 dads or 2 mothers are. Please read “Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children”, here is a try of a summary (but the article is much better of course):

            1) mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development.

            2) children progress through predictable and necessary
            developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

            3) boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them
            moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys
            generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships,
            risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

            4) same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

            There is no question that human sexuality is pliant.[…] That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

            5) if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to
            allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality
            of children would be disastrous.

            Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

            The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

            Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children.
            And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

          • Owen

            “An individualist race realist?!? I think it is kind of an oxymoron,
            no?”

            No, it isnt. I am an individualist but I also recognize that I am part of larger groups. I think you are confused about what the philosophy of individualism is so Ill inform you; individualism is the doctrine that the interests of the individual ought to be ethically paramount as well as being the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals.

            There is no conflict in being an individualist and accepting empirical facts about race.

            “Will you surprise me and also say you believe in evolution?”

            I dont “believe” in evolution so much as I accept the reality of it.

            “Because
            if so as well, then all IS about benefiting the group.”

            You need to educate yourself on evolutionary theory.

            I dont mind benefiting the group so long as I benefit in return but I would never sacrifice my interests to those of the collective. Thats communism.

            My taxes and business benefit lots of married people yet the favor is not returned because I am denied the right to federal civil marriage and all the benefits this entails. That is blatantly unconstitutional and immoral.

            “Indeed you are an
            individual and you need to be happy but not to the detriment of the
            group. Again, that means you DO have equal rights but NOT special
            rights.”

            Under the current system it is solely heterosexual couples who enjoy the special right to federal civil marriage and the thousand or so rights that come along with it. You are the one with special and exclusive rights, not me.

            “All the reasons you gave for marriage are not the real reason of
            marriage. The real reason of marriage is that married mother and father
            are the BEST parents.”

            You are confusing marriage with child rearing. The two are not mutually exclusive. I know several married straight couples who have no desire or ability to conceive or raise children yet they are granted federal civil marriage. Why arent I granted the same choice?

        • Ella

          Not so, years back before BC, women or men who were infertile were given babies by relatives or friends who could not afford another child. There were many related or church adoptions to help infertile couples. Many families never went outside their community.

          I can see this coming. The media will make a mockery of gay marriage and also, some gay men. I can imagine gay divorce court or the gay male bride(s). Many men are already uncertain of marriage with their own divorce issues. Straight men will have another excuse not to marry and leave more problems with dating, available young women. Too many people straight or gay couples are not having children. It adds to the problems. Sorry, I stick to some traditions and don’t want to see the marital institution demeaned. Marriage was practised for 30 thousand years as “man and woman” due to reproduction…… marriage is a “traditional practice” not a right and even hetero couples can be denied marriage by the clergy.

    • sbuffalonative

      The story has to do how immigration is now linked to the new ruling.

      It highlights the expansion of immigrant rights.

      • Owen

        Yes thats true so I suppose it is related to race realism.

    • Anna Tree

      How much individual freedom vs. health of a society is the question…
      In my opinion “radical personal freedom” doesn’t trump every other
      issue, that be gay marriage or extreme religious dogmas or one full
      generation deciding to bring children only at age 35+ or dangerous people on the loose.

      • Owen

        Fair enough. Now please explain to me how granting the 3% of the population who are gay the right to choose federal civil marriage will have a negative impact on societal health. Please provide empirical data and not just opinion (there are many examples around the world of nations which recognize federal civil marriage to gather this data from).

    • George

      Owen, I’m with you.
      My partner is a mulatto male who is, if anything, more of a race realist that I am.
      He has to deal with scumbag negroes who expect him to treat them as a ‘brother’.
      The state has an interest in people forming bonds. Whether the people procreate, or not, is up to them.

      • Bossman

        Gay people should have the right to form bonds but I don’t think that they should have a right to adopt and raise children. That would be child cruelty. The rights of children should be protected.

      • Owen

        The individual also has an interest in creating bonds which is why federal civil marriage is a win-win for both society and for the individual.

        However, as a libertarian I would like to see the day that the state gets out of the marriage business altogether. Until such time it is wrong to deny state sanctioned marriage to a group of people based on their gender or sexual orientation. There is absolutely no compelling secular argument against same sex marriage, only religious arguments.

  • I’m curious to what’s worst, being gay amongst blacks or being black amongst whites?

    I have no agenda, I’m sincerely curious to hear your answer.

    But I suppose you can hide being gay.

  • why do you keep bringing gay rights into the fight against white genocide and mass immigration?

    Gay rights is a manufactured controversy used by the GOP, the Dems, the media and the plutocrat masters to distract american political debate away from more important issues.

    whose side are you? The side of the white working class or the side of the Dems/GOP/Media and the plutocrats? Or are you just wanting more views?

  • Owen

    “Marriage between a man and a woman has been a part of all civilizations for CENTURIES.”

    This just isnt true. Many civilizations, including pre Christian European civilizations, recognized same sex marriages.

    “So now we have to tear down our traditions, cultural norms, etc. to suit your wants?”

    No one is asking you to abandon your traditions. You are free to embrace whatever traditions you want so long as you dont force them on me just as I am free to embrace whatever traditions I want so long as I dont force them on anyone else. My marriage to another man in no way coerces you to do anything against your will. I just want the same choice that straight people have to enter into a federally recognized civil marriage to the person of my choosing.

    “There is NO such thing as “equal rights”. Everyone, nor, all
    races, or all cultures, nor all lifestyles, etc. are NOT equal and never
    will be. The equal rights hysteria is a big lie.”

    I am no egalitarian so I agree with you on this point. However, what does the inequality of individual abilities have to do with equality under the law which is what I am talking about here?

    “Sure is odd every time there happens to be something about gays on
    amren we notice the gay trolls chime in. Do you go around the net and
    then network each other when the subject comes up or what?…”

    I am a long time daily reader of AmRen who felt the need to comment on this topic because it is something which impacts me in a very personal way.

    • Anna Tree

      1) Could you please bring support to your cause that pre Christian European civilizations recognized same sex marriages? Thank you.
      (Please don’t bring me Lahey and Alderson who quote Boswell, this seems too much a red flag for me when one is quoting another instead of quoting original sources from that time.)

      2) Anyway not everything that has existed in the past, or in the animal kingdom, or in another country or continent, should be adopted. The instance of one thing, does not make that thing automatically good. There are other time/species/cultures with different meanings for different concepts than us, this is not a reason for changing our dictionaries and our rules and values.

      3) You HAVE the choice to enter into a civil union or just create a new institution: parriage. Why do you insist to call your union, marriage?!?!

      4) Similarly, you HAVE equality: again, you can have a civil union or a parriage. Why do you want to change the definition of a term that is used for a man and a woman? Should we change a definition to accommodate a minority? (any definitions and any minorities). You have equal rights, but you want special rights. Is female washroom a discrimination against males? Is Mother’s Day a discrimination against children of 2 dads?

      Also the problem with “marriage equality between consenting adults” is that next, a brother and a sister or a father and a daughter (or a son!) etc, will then ask for “marriage equality”.

  • Owen

    I have no problem with incestuous marriages. I think the people that do are the same people who confuse marriage with sex; they are not mutually exclusive.

    Actually, I have no issue with any personal relationship that people want to enter into so long as it isnt being forced on other people. What do I care what other people choose to do with their lives so long as they leave me out of it?

    • Anna Tree

      1) That is exactly the problem! Me, me, me, me, me. Now it is all about “having a right to this
      and a right to that” Everything has become a “right”. We have lost
      perspective of what is in the best interest of this society as a WHOLE and instead have become entirely focused on what is in OUR personal best interest and then turn that into “It is our RIGHT to have that”.

      2) Your personal relationship ARE forced on other people! In the Churches, in the Scouts, in politics, in hotels or bakeries or other private businesses etc They are even forced on children as early as elementary schools!

      3) Homosexuality for me is a private matter and I would not say it is abnormal,
      unnatural or especially hurtful. But because it’s pushed on us ad
      nauseum, all the time (anything too much is too much) as normal,
      natural, not hurting anyone, genetic and not a choice, I’m asking
      genuinely for proves, as I do for any faith-based dogmas, religious or
      secular, being taught to my children and portrayed to me everywhere as
      truth. I say it became like a religion/ideology. People can believe what
      they want but shouldn’t force me to believe it unless they rationally
      prove they are correct. Homosexuality is taught in schools/media/culture/politics etc as a
      sacred truth without one ounce of evidence that it is
      genetic. So I started to feel that it’s complementing a
      bunch of things that have not been proven correct AND have bad consequences to our civilization and the
      future of our descendants like politically correctness, affirmative
      action, moral relativism, feminism, pathological altruism etc

      There is no harm for gays to fall in love and parry. I see harm in the
      trials to change concepts that are parts of the foundation of our
      society, like marriage, family, procreation etc This is weakening our
      civilization and make it a target from enemies. I would say the same
      about legalization of drugs or normalization of spouse swapping or the
      epidemic of lewdness in our colleges etc etc

      I don’t want any
      children to fear hom0sessuality, of course children should have basic
      humanity towards all humans and they have, children don’t discriminate
      more against gays than they do against fat or people with pimples (you
      should read Brennbar’s Rant by John Irving) etc. But I don’t want them to know about homosexuality in elementary school.
      This is not for their age and again anyway, we don’t know if hom0sessuality is
      innate, why should it be taught at school? Are you for unknown things
      to be taught in schools? Nowadays it’s all about politically correctness
      and sacred cows, it is not anymore about what is the best for the
      children or the truth up of today.

  • newscomments70

    I know what you’re talking about. People still sing those Christmas carols though. Don’t let anyone steal your culture and religion.

  • NM156

    Just wait until polygamy is legalized in any state. Then we’ll see a flood.

  • Ella

    The Dems will extend it further to partners with HIV, to transsexuals, and to “minor” criminals with drug charges if they can. It’s anything that can vote. Of course, “we the people” pay for the bills.

  • John Smith

    I couldn’t disagree more but then epistemology is an issue here. Apples and oranges.

    Though homosexual activists attempt to portray homosexual relationships as equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts, as you just did, they are not.

    There is a stark difference between feelings derived from loving the object of one’s carnal sexual immorality and the supernatural love that God manifests between a genuine Christian man and woman in a marriage covenant.

    You most likely don’t realize it but the Greek Word Eros isn’t even in the Bible. One of many observable results of God’s deep abiding love missing from the homosexual union is the sexual promiscuity of homosexuals:

    “A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.” [1]

    “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.” [2]

    “A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.” [3]

    “In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that ‘few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.'” [4]

    I don’t need you to agree with me. As a Christian, my epistemology tells me they are not equitable as you assert but rather very different on many levels including the supernatural and my observation and experience confirm my epistemology and not yours.

    1. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

    2. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

    3. “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

    4. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.

    Etc…

  • Even simpler than that: Mormon polygamy bad, Muslim polygamy good.

    Because it’s all a Who-Whom thing: Mormons uncool, Muslims cool.

  • John Smith

    I don’t have to stop bringing epistemological truth into arguments just because some people (not almost every educated person btw) refuse to accept a good deal of reality (e.g. people like yourself). Large organizations that have not fallen into the error that you have with extensive memberships of scientists, researchers, educators, and professionals have arisen just in the past few decades. A couple of examples would be BioLogos and RTB. But continue on with your fallacious assertions as they seem to make you happy for some reason.

  • David Ashton

    You cannot build a social system on exceptions which deserve individual praise. Hard cases make bad law, and so do some good cases. The problem lies in “leftist” redefinition of the concept of “family” which has its ideological precedents in Engels (who personally disliked “gays”), Bebel and De Sade. The idea is to combine free “love” of any sort with state control of any offspring that might result. The so-called “bourgeois family” is a prime obstacle to totalitarian government and the bedrock of a healthy nation. This does not exclude removal to foster care and sterilization as a punishment and precaution for “parents” who are cruel to their children.

  • David Ashton

    These references are most important, whether one believes in God or not.

  • Camielle Belle Poole

    Wow….someone’s bitter.

  • Ella

    Most gays I’ve known had been victims of sexual or physical child abuse (at least 85%). If not violence, then, they have been raised in an alcoholic home where the parents did not earn the child’s trust. The mother may have failed in “protecting” her son from the raging drunk or the mother had been hyper-controlling and emotional/verbal abusive. Father may have been absent or violent to Mom and child. No, gays do NOT come from typical families with avg. problems but try very abusive. So I disagree about being born this way as it’s a medical condition or hormonal dysfunction…..most gays are not.