FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 31, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)
"Liberal judges on the federal courts are resorting to making up legal standards to redefine marriage. The Supreme Court is going to need to resolve this issue once and for all." —Brian Brown, NOM president—
Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply criticized a federal appeals court ruling finding that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, accusing the justices of 'making up' arguments to justify redefining marriage. NOM said the ruling makes it highly likely that the US Supreme Court will step in to determine whether there is a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"Liberal federal judges in Massachusetts and California have resorted to making up legal standards in order to justify redefining marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "They realize the legal precedent doesn't allow them to redefine marriage, so they are making up new standards to justify imposing their values on the rest of the nation. It is clear that the US Supreme Court is going to have to resolve this issue once and for all."
In the Massachusetts challenge to DOMA, the First District Court of Appeals acknowledged that DOMA would survive constitutional challenge if they applied the traditional "rational basis" test to the claims. They also acknowledged that they lacked the legal authority to declare sexual orientation to be a "suspect class" and thus impose a heightened standard of scrutiny to a review of DOMA. Instead, they relied on cases totally unrelated to marriage and found they could impose "intensified scrutiny" on DOMA and require that the law be justified "with special clarity."
"It's obvious that the federal courts on both coasts are intent on imposing their liberal, elitist views of marriage on the American people," said Brown. "They dismiss the centuries-old understanding of marriage as a critical social institution that exists for the benefit of couples and their children, and which has served society well for thousands of years. Instead, they want their own politically-correct views to be imposed, and they are making up new law to do so. It's time for the US Supreme Court to step in and establish once and for all that preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not only completely constitutional, it is profoundly in the public good."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann, ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).
94 Comments
"Liberal judges" Brian? One is a Reagan appointee, well respected by the conservative crowd the other a Bush Sr. appointee. Misleading your group only makes things worse.
Yep, Brian. The 1st Circuit twisted themselves into a pretzel to give DOMA a higher level of review.
Now we await SCOTUS.
But at least the court acknowledged some things that SSMers have failed to grasp on thread after thread of the NOM Blog:
1) Baker v. Nelson is binding SCOTUS precedent, and forecloses any lower court from concluding that ssm is a constitutional right.
2) DOMA survives rational basis review.
3) Sexual preference classifications cannot receive heightened scrutiny.
"marriage is for the better good". So how does BANNING loving commited gay couples from marriage make it better? Oh, wait....you already told us...we're "attacking it".
Yes...Let's get it to the SCOTUS, so they can end all the bans once and for all. After all...high court judges are a bit more intelligent when it comes to constitutional law. Can't wait!
I love NOM trying to defend "marriage" and saying it's redefining it. The only people who actually think that are those who have so much brainwashing by their preachers/pastors/clergymen/etc that they think gay is bad. The real Catholics and Christians out there actually realize that there is nothing wrong with being gay whatsoever and the people who believe it is a problem seriously need to rethink who God is. Because last I checked, he's not a hateful warmonger like NOM for example.
Where's the NOM post about your beloved Cardinal Timothy Dolan and his payments to the priests who sexually abused minors? He also lied about the payments. I guess the 10 commandments get in the way of covering up rampant sexual abuse of minors.
2 of the 3 judges were appointed by GOP presidents so your argument is truly absurd. But NOM lies about everything so this is par for the course.
Sean,there's no excuse for "being gay",which is simply being selfishly wrong about same-sex attraction.
Davey,committing to the horrible wrong of being in a "gay couple" only compounds that wrong.
Louis - "Being gay" results from being born gay just as "being left handed" results from being born left handed.
Right, Pete, and those two were among the unanimous decision of a three-judge panel: two conservative, one liberal.
Are there a lot of liberal Republican judges on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals?
Funny how they wrote this decision and even made it sound quite conservative in its writing.
Brian has a degree from Oxford and Maggie a degree from Yale yet NOM is supposedly an organization out to protect the world from eltiism.
This is why the charge of 'liberal judges' is bunk. 1 liberal judge and 2 conservative judges have an unanimous ruling and its those damn 'liberal judges'. Haha at NOM!
"Res ipsa loquitur" On its face, homosexuality is perversion. This important fact needs to be stressed over and over.
Secondly, the very essence of marriage requires one man and one woman. Homosexual marriage is non-existent. It is impossible by the very definition of marriage.
To call same-sex unions a marriage is creating another Frankenstein's Monster.
LR, too bad for you that we live in America and not the Christian version of Iran.
Hey JR, #8.
No one, I repeat, no one is born homosexual. In fact, a simple look at babies tells us that we are all instead born with heterosexual equipment. A six year old could tell you that.
Secondly you make the mistake of justifying an act because of a feeling or desire. A desire for some "thing" does not legitimize it being acted upon. Homosexual behaviors by definition is perversion.
Acting out homosexual urges is ALWAYS a choice.
The NOM press release contains inaccuracies about the ruling. Above all, NOM is mischaracterizing the nature of the case. This is not a case about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rather, it is about whether DOMA is constitutional in denying federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples in states that allow same-sex marriage. What that means, is that if the Supreme Court agrees to consider this case, its ruling would only decide whether or not same-sex couples married in states with same-sex marriage constitutionally had to be given federal marriage benefits. Such a ruling would not change that a same-sex couple may not marry in, for example, Oklahoma. Moreover, the decision as I read it states that the judges did not *have* to apply heightened scrutiny in order to arrive at their legally-argued decision. NOM appears to be misrepresenting the nature of the decision, the better to rile up potential donors. This also happened when DOJ said it would no longer defend DOMA; certain parties (NOM, we're looking at you) alleged that Obama and DOJ would not longer *enforce* DOMA, which was and remains untrue.
SCOTUS, also, in Bakke, says that groups have no Rights, that only persons/individuals do.
Couples are groups.
This court says that DOMA discriminates against groups that SCOTUS says have no Rights.
If we're talking about individuals, then DOMA doesn't discriminate against them because the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman includes those who claim to be homosexual; there is no requirement that the man and the woman be heterosexual, nor Republican, nor communist.
LonesomeRhoades, why is marriage about sex to you?
I think most people consider it to be about love, devotion, and commitment. Yes, usually between people who are intimately bonded to each other, but that is ancillary and simply what usually leads to two people wanting to make that major commitment to each other.
People easily and will always have sex and make children without marriage. Straight sex and procreation isn't marriage.
You may have religious notions of marriage, but those are impermissible to be U.S. law.
Mr. Incredible.
You are right the Constitution doesn't protect groups it protects individual rights and that individuals must be treated equally under the law regardless of their individual characteristics, unless there is some valid justification to do so.
Now given a hypothetical woman, if you say that ONLY men can avail themselves of marriage law to marry her, then you are unconstitutionally discriminating against any woman who might want to marry her.
Furthermore, you dismiss the reality that people generally marry for love to the person who they are intimately bonded with.
Unnatural marriage is 0 for 32 when put on the ballot, which tells you all you need to know about what the good people of this country think about the ssm agenda of forcing people to accept something they see as morally objectionable.
Thankfully, we the people still have that voice and we will vote our values no matter what a corrupt bunch of judges in Boston or San Francico decide.
This is absurd! If a state court rules same sex friendships are marriages, then the federal government has to agree?
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/gay-is-a-choice
Byrd, have you even read the court's opinion or do you just read what NOM writes about it?
LonesomeRhoades, amazing how the greater medical and psychological communities disagree with you. Perhaps your viewpoint reflects said six-year old. ( cue SOA)
Byrd, first is all all matters of rights for minorities do poorly at the polls. But thanks for supporting the realization that LGBT are politically powerless and worthy of protection.
Only Mitt Romney can fix the nightmare of far left elitism through conservative (traditional marriage understanding and supporting) judicial appointments to the federal bench.
Byrd, most of those ballot box votes were from several years ago, and support for same-gender marriage equality has grown every year since. 12 opinion polls in the last year have shown majority support for marriage equality. (Of course that doesn't translate into who actually shows up to vote, but as opinion polling grows higher in support, it will not matter if 100% of those opposed show up to vote).
And as Pete points out. Minority rights are not supposed to be subject to popular votes. That is why we have a Constitution. If interracial marriage had been put to a popular vote, it would not have been made legal until the mid 1990's (not 1967).
==You are right the Constitution doesn't protect groups it protects individual rights and that individuals must be treated equally under the law regardless of their individual characteristics, unless there is some valid justification to do so.==
They already are treated equally. ALL men may marry women, and ALL women may marry men.
==Now given a hypothetical woman, if you say that ONLY men can avail themselves of marriage law to marry her, then you are unconstitutionally discriminating against any woman who might want to marry her.==
Not true. There is no societal benefit that the State needs to protect SSM.
==Furthermore, you dismiss the reality that people generally marry for love to the person who they are intimately bonded with.==
"Love" is not required in order to marry. Neither is procreation, nor that the man and the woman be heterosexual. They may claim to be homosexual, for all the law cares.
M. Jones, do you really not realize that 2 of the 3 judges were GOP nominees? Maybe the judges decided this case by basing it on the laws and not your warped views of what the laws should be.
Mr. I., you would rather have 2 people who do not love each other marry, but not loving same sex couples. Your version of 'marriage' makes a bigger mockery of marriage then same sex marriage ever would.
M. Jones, aren't you guys pleased that the Obama run justice department isn't litigating this case, and instead it is being defended by a super-star conservative attorney who Congress hired to give DOMA the best defense possible? At $1.5 million I should hope he's giving it all he's got!
I can only imagine what NOM would have to say if Obama's justice department were the one's defending DOMA. You would no doubt insist that it lost due to a horribly poor defense.
if ssm is so great why have only a small % of "gay" couples taken advantage of it. there are states and countries where ssm or some form of it has been legal for some time but I have not heard or read about any big rush by the homosexual community to take advantage of it. I have my doubts that if you added up all the "gay" couples who have gotten married it would add up to less than 10% of course the i tis i is not about ssm but an effort to force society to become like them
Mr. Incredible, you obviously cannot refute the fact that given a hypothetical woman, that allowing only men to marry her, discriminates against any woman that might want to marry her. Hence you are discriminating against individuals based on not just an individual characteristic (like religious belief), but an innate characteristic, gender.
There is as much societal benefit for same-gender marriage as there is for opposite-gender marriage. When two people make a legal commitment to care for and protect each other and to share their lives together as spouses, it creates a host of positive benefits to them as individuals, any children they might raise, and to society at large. It is a financial plus to the State.
I did not say love was a requirement for marriage. The State does not concern itself with why two people choose to marry. I said that love is generally why people choose to marry. That's a basic reality.
It is nice to see that marriage corruption supporters are still willing to turn a blind eye to standing court precedence just so they can enjoy a few more sunshiny days on their all expense paid cruise down the river Denial. One would think that a ruling that includes a finding that Baker v. Nelson is still guiding precedence, which cannot be ignored, would be enough to send a reasonably sane Queer over the edge.
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
Here endeth the lesson!
==you obviously cannot refute the fact that given a hypothetical woman, that allowing only men to marry her, discriminates against any woman that might want to marry her.==
Then, the law also discriminates against the hypothetical father who wants to marry, hypothetically, his daughter, for example.
==Hence you are discriminating against individuals based on not just an individual characteristic (like religious belief), but an innate characteristic, gender.==
A hypothetical mother wants to marry her son. I must be discriminating against them, too.
==There is as much societal benefit for same-gender marriage as there is for opposite-gender marriage.==
No, there isn't. SSM adds nothing to country, society, nor culture.
== When two people make a legal commitment to care for and protect each other and to share their lives together as spouses, it creates a host of positive benefits to them as individuals, any children they might raise, and to society at large.==
Nothing Moral is created, and there is nothing that benefits country, society, culture.
== It is a financial plus to the State.==
At the expense of Morality.
==I did not say love was a requirement for marriage.==
You: "marry for love"
==The State does not concern itself with why two people choose to marry.==
And, so, those who claim to be homo may marry now, as the rest of us do.
== I said that love is generally why people choose to marry. That's a basic reality.==
But love is not required. Neither is procreation. Neither is heterosexality. A man and a woman who claim to be homo may marry for the benefits. A marriage of convenience.
The three jurists agreed that:
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
The jurists just felt that one reason was not going to be good enough because most people do not like perverts. They seem to believe a new level of scrutiny must be created that calls for a second rational basis.
Immediately after the higher courts acknowledge a second rational basis the perverts will come back and say: "Did I say two; I meant three"
And so on, and so on, and so on...
Under the law (DOMA), no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. It does define marriage between a man and a woman at the federal level, and if it does not then states would have to recognize SS"M" that were performed from other states. So who is the one that is deceiving?
Honestly Randy. Your language doesn't help your case any.
Mr. Incredible. The law must be applied evenly regardless of individual characteristics, unless there is a rational basis to discriminate. Parent-child marriage is forbidden, and the rational basis for that is because they already share a close familial relationship. Marriage is for creating a familial union between two otherwise unrelated individuals. Close family members are already afforded various rights as relatives to one another.
You can claim that there is no value in same-gender marriage all you want, but that does not negate the fact that there is. There is as much value in it as there is for non-procreative opposite-gender couples who marry (and who are perfectly free to marry).
As to morality, that is not a valid justification for law. Everybody has different moralities based off different things. Some say the most moral thing is to allow same-gender couples the full equal right to marry.
You've described DOMA accurately April Brown, and it is why the federal courts are finding it to be unconstitutional.
DOMA violates several constitutional principles.
Graham,
My case is not dependent upon calling perverts perverts; my case was just recently upheld by the 1st Circuit ruling you are cheering:
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings"
"There is as much value in it as there is for non-procreative opposite-gender couples who marry"
This meme has already been discredited by the court you are cheering as nothing more than "a theoretical abnormality that has no effect on the traditional rational for marriage; procreation."
Randy, you make interests points that were also made by Brian. SSMers seem to have missed them. I posted something on it, but my comment is in the filter.
The 1st Circuit rebuffed a lot of things SSMers repeat on this blog.
It said that Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent; and because of that decision, there is no right to ssm, even considering Lawrence and Romer.
It said that DOMA would survive rational basis review.
It said that there is no legal authority to declare sexual preference as a protected class.
It said that DOMA could not tarred as animus-driven.
The court said a lot of things that SSMers usually contest on this blog, but celebrate today due to their ignorance of the ruling. Yet the justices did some novel type of analysis that would not subject DOMA to rational basis review.
So now, we await SCOTUS!
This is not about redefining marriage, it's about whether Congress acted constitutionally when it decided to force the federal government to, for the first time, ignore some legal marriages of U.S. citizens. DOMA was 100% motivated by anti-gay animus and it's about time it was thrown in history's garbage heap.
“In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too. The federal government had the authority to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well.”
Alliance Defense Fund
14th Amend might have an argument if shim could name even one piece of legislation specifically barring self-described "gay" people from acquiring a marriage license. The federal govt. didn't create marriage; DOMA simply formally recognized the obvious--that marriage is a public union between adult individuals of the opposite sex, who are not already close kin. That some adults choose to self-identify with a particular political persuasion is irrelevant to marriage law. They are not now, nor ever have been prohibited from entering into state-endorsed matrimony, whether by means of a civil servant, or a licensed clergyman.
Except DoE that polygamy is a different beast from marriage, and the federal government's requirement to uphold the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
So long as the federal government is recognizing marriages between 2 people (man and woman) they have to recognize marriages between 2 people regardless of gender.
Numbers defined in a group is not protected by the Constitution. They can legally define that as 1, 2, or 200.
Furthermore the federal government is permitted to define a rational basis for why they would not recognize particular marriages. They failed to do that for same-gender marriages.
14th Amend,
When DOMA was enacted there were no same-sex marriages in the United States, so how could Congress act out of animosity for something that did not even exist in the United States at the time?
Grahm,
The 1st Cirtcuit just ruled that DOMA passes the rational basis test. Did you even bother to read the courts findings?
@Graham
They failed because the federal government has refused to defend DOMA.
Anyways, I find this rather ironic. In the ruling the court said that DOMA was infringing on states rights, but DOMA allows states to define their own marriage laws without imposing their will on a neighboring state.
But the ruling didn't do anything. All it basically did was set up a showdown before the Supreme Court.
@14 Amend
And it was signed by Bill Clinton. I guess he was acting out of anti-gay animus.
Come on. I swear, it is a sure sign of paranoia when one thinks that the core purpose of christianity's existence was to oppress people who live a life of homosexuality.
"Furthermore the federal government is permitted to define a rational basis for why they would not recognize particular marriages. They failed to do that for same-gender marriages."
Graham, you do realize that the 1st Circuit said that DOMA would pass rational basis review, right?
Perhaps you are talking about another case.
Let's see if this comment gets posted. Third times a charm!
I wish these judges could be impeached for judicial misconduct for ignoring the real meaning of marriage.
"polygamy is a different beast from marriage"
No, it's really not. It still affirms the man/woman integration, and ties children to both their biological parents. SSM is a different beast, as it is a bride less or groom less govt. construct that borrows some the two-some aspect of marriage while ignoring sex integration, and natural biological ties between men, women, and their offspring. SSM is the counterfeit.
Want to know how "gay marriage" will affect your family? From a mom in Canada on the front lines: (Warning--graphic content)
http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/doma-ruling-and-how-gay-marriage-affects-my-family/
Patrick, don't be such a dunce.
Bans on interracial marriage were designed to keep races apart, and that was and is wrong. The historic definition of marriage is rooted in bringing the genders together. Race is not a fundamental quality or aspect of marriage. But gender is.
Therefore, allowing interracial marriage did not call for a redefinition but rather an affirmation of marriage. It says males should be able to marry females, regardless of race. Same-sex marriage is something very different and much darker—a redefinition of marriage.
How difficult is that for you to understand?
Dan,
This ruling is meaningless, and only takes the issue one step further to the convervative US Supreme Court, which will uphold the constitutionality of the D.O.M.A., despite the singular focus of the liberal main stream media outlets that like to try and convince people that American society readily embraces unnatural marriage, when it certainly does not when you look at the voting record.
Graham, sorry but that boat doesn't float. Many of the ballot iniatives against same sex marriage have occured since the year 2000. We're not talking about votes that go back 50 years or longer here. This is recent history and ssm has lost every time.
You can cite polls til pigs fly, we'll just win elections.
Marriage exists to unite males to females...there is a state interest in promoting such unions that does not exist for any same-sex union.
@Graham
'The law must be applied evenly regardless of individual characteristics, unless there is a rational basis to discriminate. Parent-child marriage is forbidden, and the rational basis for that is because they already share a close familial relationship'
SSM is prohibited on the rational basis that is because our biological makeup breaks humanity down into two distinct genders. Even more rational, as this is based on science and nature.
Overturning Section 3 of DOMA simply returns to federal definition of marriage to what it had always been: If a couple is legally married at the state level, they're legally married at the federal level.
It's quite simple. It's Congress that unconstitutionally redefined it to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the law.
14th,
The federal definition of marriage has, since 1875, been rooted in:
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
The only thing you got going for you is the fact the lower courts expressed a belief that someday SCOTUS might overturn 200 rears of guiding court precedence and allow an organized horde of miscreants to change the historic definition of marriage so that they can realize their dream of destroying this nation.
"The definition of marriage for purposes of provisions of federal law is inherently a federal matter." See http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos
The SCOTUS previously defined marriage at the federal level in the polygamy cases as consisting of one man and one woman. See Murphy v. Ramsey.
Is there any case where a state's legal definition is allowed to trump a federal legal definition where federal law is at issue? Would a state's definition of a "handgun" or "automatic weapon" be allowed to trump the federal definition of those terms in regard to federal law? Of course not. Only in the highly politicized world of gay lawfare are such rulings possible. This case should go right to the SCOTUS.
"Is there any case where a state's legal definition is allowed to trump a federal legal definition where federal law is at issue?"
Better question: Besides same-sex marriages, are there any legal marriage from any state which the federal government is required by law to ignore?
Publius, glad to see your thoughtful comments back on the NOM Blog.
It's amazing how many federal judges were able to trick Republican presidents into appointing them to the bench so that decades later they could impose their radical homosexualist agenda on the American people. There are now federal judges appointed by Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II that have all ruled in favor of marriage equality. Quite a well orchestrated plot indeed (rubs hands together and laughs sinisterly).
What's really amazing is that, for all of this time, our country has felt the need to record and regulate the sexual relationships of men and women because it wanted to indulge in "anti-gay bigotry."
#64 is not a "better question." It's an evasion.
==It's Congress that unconstitutionally redefined it to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the law.==
Where is it in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, given that EVERYBODY is either a man/male, or a woman/female and that NOBODY is, therefore, excluded?
AND, the law doesn't require the man and the woman to be heterosexual. They may claim to be homo, for all the law cares.
14th Amend seems to think that because a judge was picked by a Republican president, that they govern from the conservative philosophy.
Fact of the matter is, these presidents might have actually done their job and picked the judges based on their merits and not political background.
At least the issue has "ripened", and now it can go to SCOTUS.
I like our chances
@Randy "Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
There is no law against a same-sex couple trying to procreate offspring. It is a serious real area of research, though it might never be possible, it could be attempted today. It simply needs to be prohibited, Randy. Do you think it should be prohibited, or do you think we should we let labs try to make people that way?
Please don't duck the question.
No same-sex couple can procreate.
Were you asleep during high school Biology?
Procreation takes heterosexuality.
Mr. I: Your point is irrelevant to the issue of civil marriage.
We understand why you dismiss it. That, of course, doesn't mean that it's dismissed.
Civil "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman. No love is necessary. No sex is necessary. No heterosexuality is necessary. Everybody is either a man/male, or a woman/female. NOBODY is left out who is either.
If there is procreation, it takes heterosexuality to do it. Even those who claim to be homo must resort to heterosexuality if they want kids of their own.
@LonesomeRhoades Over 130,000+ same sex couples are indeed legally married in the USA so saying their marriages don't exist shows your lack of understanding of reality. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. NO religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.
"NO religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized."
Ditto for procreation.
Ditto for love.
Ditto for heterosexuality in the man and the woman.
What it shows, Skooter, is that there are a lot of citizens willing to settle for a counterfeit.
@Daughter of Eve •Yawn•
Labs could create a human using artificial stem cell derived gametes to allow same-sex couples to procreate. Kids are being taught that it may be possible for them to change sex and procreate with or as either sex. Leaving it legal instead of ruling it out damages them, so even if it never possible it should be ruled out and prohibited. If its not prohibited, then SSM should be legal too.
A homo couple cannot procreate. The individuals can, but the couple cannot. The individuals need heterosexuality to procreate.
Same-sex couples cannot procreate using their unmodified gametes, but they could attempt to procreate using genetically modified artificial gametes derived from stem cells. The point is, we should not approve of people doing that or say they have a right to do that. Marriage has nothing to do with ability to succeed, and everything to do with being allowed to try.
==...they could attempt to procreate using genetically modified artificial gametes derived from stem cells.==
"Artificial." THAT's the key word.
Another is "modified."
Interesting that you can't get away without using words that compromise the agenda.
Dude, I'm not saying it would be ethical or equivalent to a man and a woman procreating. It is really a form of manufacture, not procreation at all. But they still claim a right to attempt it. Do you agree with them that they have a right to attempt it? If so, then you should support same-sex marriage. If you don't think they have a right to attempt it, then you should support prohibiting it. Do you understand that it isn't prohibited right now, and they demand this right? Tell them there is no right to attempt same-sex conception and join me in calling for a law that prohibits it.
There is no right to attempt same-sex conception and it strikes me as highly unlikely that there does not already exist a law that prohibits it.
88
They have no "Right" to try it. It is unnatural.
I know they demand that "Right." hey demand a lotta things.
I join you.
It's all an attempt to make it look as though it's natural. It's a scam.
Rick, only Missouri has a law that prohibits it. We need a federal law like the one recommended in 2004 by the President's Council on Bioethics. Congress has not yet followed through on their recommendations:
We believe that such departures and inequities in human origins should not be inflicted on any child. We therefore recommend that, in an effort to secure for children who are born with the help of ARTs the same rights and human attachments naturally available to children conceived in vivo, Congress should:
Prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm.vii
Prohibit attempts to conceive a child by using gametes obtained from a human fetus or derived from human embryonic stem cells.vii
Prohibit attempts to conceive a child by fusing blastomeres from two or more embryos.vii
http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/chapter10.html
Alarmingly, the PCBE apparently wasn't in agreement on whether they should prohibit use of gametes derived from adult stem cells, which is how "female sperm" or "male eggs" are made in labs today. They only went as far as saying a child is entitled to have "two progenitors" which is pretty freaky, it deprives the child of a right to natural human origins or having a father and a mother. So the new federal law needs to specify that the sperm be "of a man" and the egg be "of a woman" like the Missouri law does.
Mr Incredible, thanks for joining in the call to prohibit same-sex couples from attempting to manufacture offspring somehow. It is essential and central to the fight to preserve marriage as a man and a woman, heck, to preserve man and woman as well.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As a matter of fact, I will go so far as to lobby my congressional delegation.
Yay! Wow, that'd be great. I'll do the same, it's been over a year since I contacted mine.