Are you arguing that women were not once considered chattel of their husbands?

As far as being archaic is concerned, women are no longer considered property of their husbands because marriage has evolved. Now marriage is evolving again, to include same sex couples. Get with the times.

Rick-

You forgot to include in your definition that marriage is a legal, civil contract between mutally consenting adults, not subject to popular approval from strangers. Also, marriage is not always long term (as evidenced by a 50% divorce rate), the parties do not have to always and do not always complement one another (as evidenced by the divorce rate) and children are not a requisite to have or retain such a contract.

In short, the parties do not have to meet your definition and do not need your approval or consent to execute such a contract. Why do you think that you have any business and the right to tell mutually consenting adults how to live their lives?

Nothing more helpful than that.

"So Fitz, in your own words, what is the very definition of marriage? Does it include that women are property of their husbands? Be sure to include it in your definotion, otherwise you will be leaving out a fundamental characteristic of "traditional marriage"."??

Here is another old feminist canard that makes its way into the "thought" of your typical gay "marriage" advocate.

The truth of the matter is that NO..woman werte not\..."the property" of their husbands, you cant kill your wife ...or sell your wife to another...like a piece of land, or cattle, or a bed frame....

A much better understanding would be to say that both parties are susumned in the marriage into a single legal unit. That is still the case today in many regards. This had many advantages and pitfalls for both husband and wife...although it could be fair to say that the woman was (on the whole) more disadvataged...but only by contemprary standards.

The fact that Woody repeats these toupes demonstrates at least to things...1) his ideological lens that he views the world (and its scewed nature) 2) His fundemental disrespect and casual distaste for the insitution itself.

Most marriage curruptors have this false understanding of the history of marriage and this helps explain why they have so little reservation in changing the insitution so thouroughly....they think its fundementally archaic and patriachal and oppresive and repressive to begin with.

There is no discrimination 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. NOBODY is left out who is either.

Plus, the law doesn't say that the man and/or the woman must be heterosexual. They may claim to be homosexual, or atheist, or Republican, for all the law cares.

Loving reiterates "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, regardless of race, or, by extension, politics, or whether the man and the woman are heterosexual. They may claim to be homosexual, for all the law cares.

And it seems that no one cares about NOM's dishonesty. So much for the moral high ground.

Marriage= that long term, stable union of the two complementary genders of the human species, from which union children commonly result, and within which union they are best nurtured.

Marriage= that long term, stable union of the two complementary genders of the human species, from which union children commonly result, and within which union they are best nurtured.

Now go prepare for the oncoming disaster we are preparing for you this November.

So Fitz, in your own words, what is the very definition of marriage? Does it include that women are property of their husbands? Be sure to include it in your definotion, otherwise you will be leaving out a fundamental characteristic of "traditional marriage".

Both you, plubious and SCOTUS knows what traditional marriage means.

Indeed - Loving v Virginia was srtruck down in its main holding not based on the 14th amendment claim (although that was brought in earlier in the opinion) but on that traditional definition of marriage you think dosent exist or is subjective.

Indeed - anti-mescegenation laws were not part and parcel of marriage laws but rather were tacted on to other Jim crow laws that inforced segregation of the races.

In fact most such laws (as evidenced by there poipularity outside the south and inclusion of asians & hsipanic intermarriage - were legacies of the progressive eugenics movment,

Nothing about Loving changed the very definition of marriage.

Everyone has his or her own definition of "traditional" marriage. In Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS ruled that limiting marriage to the "traditional" spouses of the same race was unconstitutional. So claiming that the SCOTUS has always ruled in favor of "traditional" marriage is patently false.

Are you saying the photoshot was not from the Washington Times?

Discrimination and bigotry are not justification for discrimination and bigotry.

The overwhelming majority of judges ruling on the subject of marriage have upheld traditional marriage, judge shopping and relentless lawfare notwithstanding.

And all the rulings overturning the federal DOMA have been properly stayed.

And every state that has held a referendum on state DOMA's has upheld traditional marriage.

An excerpt: Appellants here argue that MN DOMA violates the Minnesota Constitution. The district court determined that MN DOMA does not violate the Minnesota Constitution, relying on Baker, stating that it had "no reason to believe that the result in Baker would have been different had the Baker [appellants] alleged violations of the Minnesota Constitution." But we do not agree that Baker forecloses an argument based on the Minnesota Constitution, and conclude that the district court inappropriately dismissed the matter on a rule-12 motion.

Full decision here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6771166795063120797&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

(1) Glad this is in the Washington newspapers and reading their comments section showed people their get it. Hammer this point to win big at the next election.
(2) We need to get this to the Minnesota group. I would like to see Kelly Yanta cover this in her next video.
(3) Make sure this reaches Maryland and Maine to fight back the lies being used by the sodomites.

And this is very telling:
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their tiny size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and a failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identity."

Even when focusing on gender and sexuality, children raised with gay parents exhibit higher levels of non- gender related behavior and less exclusively straight sexual identity.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.

You have no precedent at law, you have no mandate from the people......

I hope this helps to make it clear why we are confident that this is the year it all becomes very clear to you; your strategy was always seven times less clever than it appeared.

You assert that a right exists, which the Supreme Court has already established it doesn't.

You then set about to overturn this established law.

One of the important aspects in doing so, is to demonstrate that your fellow citizens agree with your wishes in this regard.

In this you have failed- and the word "colossally" would not seem out of place to describe the totality of that failure.

So.

You have no precedent at law, you have no mandate from the people......

I hope this helps to make it clear why we are confident that this is the year it all becomes very clear to you; your strategy was always seven times less clever than it appeared.

you are misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

You're not making any sense. 

The "well established" laws you speak of - you know, those 32 marriage amendments, are less than a decade old and most certainly are motivated by predjudice against gays and lesbians. 

I'm trying to find the point in the rest of what you wrote. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the fact that same-sex-marriage wasn't an issue when the country was founded proves your claims about the negative consequences of marriage equality? Huh????

Then you write "The burden of proof is therefore on *you*, and you have failed to meet it 33 consecutive times." Again, huh? The fact that discriminatory amendments have won at the ballot box proves that same-sex marriage has negative consequences??? I don't think so. The burden of proof is actually on *you*. When you advocate for discrimination in the law, you need to have a damn good reason for doing so. You don't have that level of scrutiny at the ballot box but you do have it in the courtroom. And that's why you have and will continue to lose there time and time again. 

>> Since our laws are well-established, it is sophistry to claim that prejudice is the motive for defending them.

Strike One.

"because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality"

>> Wrong. Pseudo-marriage had never so much as entered the most deranged of fever dreams when the laws concerning marriage were established.

The burden of proof is therefore on *you*, and you have failed to meet it 33 consecutive times.

>> Since our laws are well-established, it is sophistry to claim that prejudice is the motive for defending them.

Strike One.

"because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality"

>> Wrong. Pseudo-marriage had never so much as entered the most deranged of fever dreams when the laws concerning marriage were established.

The burden of proof is therefore on *you*, and you have failed to meet it 33 consecutive times.

Our intention os to make it 37 this November, and then we will have done what our personal repsonsibiliy as citizens demanded.

We then will sit back and watch whether your hypothesis that the SCOTUS will bless a legal conspiracy expressly directed toward disenfranchising the voters in 37 states by explicitly refusing to acknowledge direct Supreme Court precedent will fly.

If I were on your side of this I would certainly have a full crash team standing by.

because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality then say you don't need to prove them.

Actually Rick, you do. You can't insist that your predjudice be enshrined into our laws because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality then say you don't need to prove them. If you didn't need to, these anti-gay activist organizations wouldn't have spent 3/4 of a million dollars to fund this study. All they're trying to do here is create pseudo evidence they think will help them at SCOTUS. Fortunately, the court will be able to see how incredibly biased it is. Again, Robert George's organization funded this.

We do not need statistical analysis to fully grasp and implement the simple truth that each child is the product of the union of one man and one woman, and the common good requires us to foster the long term union of parents and children in stable families.

Or, in other words, we do not need statistical analysis to fully grasp and implement the simple truth that marriage absolutely must be defended against the social engineers.

There is one group of studies that would not be "biased" under this egis....Studies that confirm the no-difference or superiority of same-sex "parenting".

This study avoids those biases...opponents can only offer conjecture based on ad-hominum...not actuall proof of biased research.

"there is one significant strength to this study which makes it stand out. Unlike prior studies, the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is based on a national probability sampled population. This is the gold standard for all social science studies, and it’s extremely rare for a study to achieve that mark. As far as I am aware, all of the studies to date of gay and lesbian parenting use non-representative convenience samples."

Ummm, 14th, it appears your link admits the study to be far superior to earlier studies.

But thanks for linking.

But if we're going to focus on the researchers themselves, funny that the work of Charlotte Patterson and Nanette Gartrell, both lesbian mothers, is beyond dispute, although their work lacks the methodological strengths of this study by Regnerus.

Not to mention that Gartrell's study, though published in Pediatrics, was funded by The Gill Foundation and several other LGBT advocacy groups.

A gay judge's self interest can't possibly inform his findings, right?

Let's put the myths of the "family diversity" advocates to rest. And let's continue with more and more rigorous research.