Friendships have to do with marriage at the State level (only). At least we agree (premise) friendships do exist. (That's not much progress, though. Thanks.)

At the Federal level, it's not your garden variety State legislator who makes the decision about marriage (for Federal purposes). First, you have to read a bit to realize State legislators don't tell US Congress what to do.

DOMA was passed in 1996 when Hawaii had its first lawsuit by a same-sex couple arguing they, by law, should be granted a marriage license (State level).

Back in D.C., DOMA was passed, purposefully, to make sure, in advance, that when certain States might pass same-sex marriage laws, other States wouldn't have to recognize a bizarre form of so-called marriage totally in disharmony with why their State government is in the marriage business to begin with. Otherwise, one single SSm in the entire country would force other States to recognize it. That's a "no, no", in advance.

So, your argument is that certain States have passed SSm, and you are correct. But then you seem to imply that these marriages must be recognized at the federal level, and that is where you and Obama come face to face with the US Congress. Ups!

DOMA was passed by a great bi-partisan majority as a federal Act. it has been upheld many times by federal courts, until Obama and his gang started playing tricks with the "Defense" of the Defense of Marriage Act.

When that became too obvious, and he couldn't hide 'below the radars', Obama and gang simply started attacking that perfectly valid law passed by Congress. Who is he, anyway? The reason is so he could get re-elected. And it worked. Got him lots of campaign contributions.

But SSm marriages at the State level (they exist, like friendships do, we agree) doesn't make them 'marriages' at the federal level. Other States that have not passed SSm shouldn't be paying taxes to provide benefits for SSm from another State. It wouldn't be fair.

In contrast to what you write: DOMA does not ignore a reality. . . it predicted today's reality, and was ready to avoid a complete mess, at the federal level.

You are the one ignoring a reality called DOMA, and the federal courts which have upheld it. That's because there's another piece of 'reality' you don't know about: Rational Basis Review.

"My point is that DOMA ignores the reality that the federal government ignore certain marriages and give them no federal recognition."

SSM is not marriage.

SSM means the Specious Substitution for Marriage.

The lack of either a husband or wife pretty much makes the point.

But if you want "legally recognized relationships" to be the standard for your notion of what the federal government must do, then, you best get back to the basics and justify the imposition of the false equivalence between the union of husband and wife and the type of relationship you have in mind regarding one-sex-short scenarios.

I mean, is it the gay emphasis? Really? But there is no legal requirement for gayness for those who'd SSM so that cannot be the justification for SSM. Right?

You might scoff that there is no straightness requirement for those who'd marry. Well, I would agree. But that means your pro-SSM complaint, based on gayness, is a fraud. There is no gayness requirement for ineligibility to marry, now, under the bride-plus-groom requirement.

So, on one hand your read into the marriage law what is not there. And, on the other hand, your demand a revision to the law for something would not be a legal requirement and so, again, read into the SSM law what is not actually there.

With all that making-stuff-up going on in your argumentation and rhetoric, there does not seem to be much room left for sound reasoning. But please do try to justify your complaint and your proposed revision to the law.

"The reality is that gay couples exist- they exist and they are raising children. The only difference is that they are doing so without the protections that same sex couples enjoy under federal (and many state) law."

The reality is, Eric, that the same-sex category of relationships is far wider than your gay emphasis would permit.

There are millions more non-gay one-sexed scenarios in which parents and their adult children are raising children. They do so without the advantages that you demand for the gay subset of this broader category.

Look, the SSM idea is sold with a goofy gay emphasis. Take that away and what is left? A call for protections. You just made that call.

Well, why deny these other one-sexed scenarios -- especially those raising children -- the protective status you are talking about? They are similarly situated.

The union of husband and wife merits a special status (marital status is a special status), but that means a preferential status. Not a protective status. If you are concerned with protections, then, you need not touch marriage at all. And you can easily include many other types of relationships that they type you have in mind with your gay emphasis.

Instead, the SSM campaign has attacked the marriage idea and demanded that it be replaced by the SSM idea.

They demand that marriage be demoted from its preferential status down to a barely tolerative status. In the meantime, while they get more and more agitated over their demands, SSMers, such as yourself, focus on protections. Well, dropping marriage to a protective status is an intermediary step but your going to have to justify treating marriage as non-marriage.

Or, rather, treating non-marriage as marriage, if you want to keep the special status going for awhile longer. Why? Because you need to show how that special status is sustainable now, before you revise the law. Your gay emphasis does not provide the justification for the revision nor does it provide any means whereby to sustain the special status of marriage.

Why distinguish between marriage and non-marriage? Indeed, why distinguish between the gay type of relationship you have in mind and the rest of the types of relationships that are not the union of husband and wife?

No, "me too", is not a sound argument, Eric. Please provide substance to your demands or drop those demands forthwith.

"But they don't enjoy equal rights under law. Legally married gay couples do not enjoy the same full rights as legally married straight couples"

Where SSM is entrenched in the law, there are some people who are ineligible to SSM. Those who are SSM'd enjoy legal advantages that are denied siblings, polygamous people, and groups in polyamory.

But, based on SSM alone, there is no justification for those bans.

Chris, you need to consult with Marc Paul who needs some help to figure out the common sense reasons for deny some people what you both demand for the members of the gay identity group.

Marriage provides the justification but your SSM idea is quite different for it is a rejection of the core meaning of marriage and so is a rejection of the legitimate basis for the lines of ineligibility.

There was (1) SSM in Canada between lawful Canadian citizens last year and just as few in those States in the U.S that have imposed State sponsored depravity not five years ago.

The numbers will never be larger than the first day this travesty is permitted in their respective jurisdictions. The real insult here is in the insistence of supporters of this assault on freedoms source that corrupting marriage is the end to a means; not the means to an end.

Their intent is far more sinister then just destroying the natural family; as if that were not dastardly enough.

It has not ALWAYS been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman- for almost the entire 21st century marriage has included gay couples in numerous countries and states. I would also ay that the exclusively one-woman one-man definitely is not the most obvious definition for today, a it excludes many families in legally recognised relationships.

I have more freedom of speech in Russia than here in the US! Now that's a twist in history that no one could ever have foreseen!

But the truth / reality is that not EVERYONE has the same rights. 'For the most part', it would be true. You have handicapped people who have more rights as individuals (they get the best parking spaces). You have Native Americans and Hawaiians who have special rights (and deserve them). You have government employees who can go where we cannot go, or build or stay where we cannot.

And then, of course, we have some that have gained or achieved special rights through their proper work and efforts as in the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

I could put up a temper tantrum arguing these justices have more rights than i, but i didn't qualify for those rights. My temper tantrum better not do me any good, if you know what i mean, or life would be chaotic.

But, in terms of associations, different associations have different rights, and that is easily defensible, and proper. And that is the point in this video featuring Peter Sprigg, a point that was not contested:

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/cnn-guest-slams-call-for-gay-rights-in-inaugural-address-homosexuals-already-have-all-the-same-civil-rights/

It is impossible to ban SSm when it is actually not included in State marriage to begin with. You argue as if it was already included in State marriage, and assume everyone is too stupid to recognize it has never been banned from a rational category it doesn't even fit.

Look at this ludicrous statement (from you): "Our own government and 32 states treat gay couples as complete strangers under the law." Complete what? Laws don't apply to them? I don't have empathy for your irrelevant 'thoughts'.

I think Putin is not stupid to see how much violence and harm LGBT people do in society, usually with impunity. Frank Lombard, for example, only got caught because he went to brag on the Internet about what he was doing. His “husband” – so called by liberals – claims he just didn’t know, just like Joe Paterno. One has to wonder how fanatical the entire adoption system is regarding normalizing homosexuality to give two defenseless children to a monster like Lombard.

If such homosexuals can fool specialized social workers so easily, assuming that liberal social workers even try to correctly assess homosexuals looking to adopt – and here there’s cause for doubt – how much does the rest of society know of what is really going on with the “gays?”

As we can see by the Lombard case, our “gay is normal” society is anything progressive. LGBT people point fingers at rednecks and Christians, calling them backwards and bigots. I think it’s time for LGBT people to face how much violence and harm they do in the world.

Why do think he is a hater? Do you think people who practice violence within relationships are haters? And how about people who hate other people's religions - are they haters? Do you think people who denigrate sexuality are haters? Do you think you have any thoughts that qualify you as a hater?

And in all 50 states you can be fired (or be refused a job), because of your religion/social conservative views, without any repercussion. That's what happens in practice: no repercussion, if employers manipulate their story enough to cover their true motive. So what is the law worth, really?

Secondly, aren't liberals saying employers should be able to fire people, if don't like their employee's politics? Why shouldn't employers have the right to fire employees with a homosexuality agenda then?

I thought liberals were claiming that denying people a job is not persecution, because no one has a right to a job. That's what many say when they deny jobs to conservatives.

However, i believe this is more to do with the regulations and entitlements that are flourishing under Obama, not whether gay couples are recognized under the federal government.

I would characterize myself as a Ron Paul Republican, but I do believe gay couples should be recognized as equal to heterosexual couples under the law. No private individual or organization should be obliged to offer goods or services (unless they are government workers, in which case they are obliged to be non-discrimatory to all tax payers and their legal unions).

Free Obamaphones for all!

Now, man-woman relationships are great (in general)- they can provide stable environments for couples and children (if they are present). However when the law ignores same sex couples (which is essentially what doma ensures), they ignore the reality of the situation in USA. The reality is that gay couples exist- they exist and they are raising children. The only difference is that they are doing so without the protections that same sex couples enjoy under federal (and many state) law. This needs to change, and it will, as the more same sex couples that are legally married, and with more states legalizing the practice, it becomes harder and harder for the federal government to essentially ignore that they exist.

I do like your weather analogy, however. I invite you and the other haters to come into the genuine sunlight of love and acceptance. The water is much better than you might think, and we are certainly much more forgiving than you might believe. But as long as you keep trying to suppress us (and yes I know you'll say you're doing no such thing), we'll keep fighting you tooth and nail. And the last time I looked, we are the stronger side, with more joining us every day. So come join us.

I am done with this thread, so you get the last word. I will doubtless pop up on another thread some day. Au revoir, as your comrades in arms les francais say...

He is interested in fighting and winning a culture war.

Are we?

Truly one of the most ludicrous statements you've ever made. Gay people can be fired (or refused housing) simply because they're gay in 29 states. Our own government and 32 states treat gay couples as complete strangers under the law. According to them, their relationships DON'T exist. Can you imagine what it would be like if the state you lived in (or our government) told you that they don't consider your relationship valid in society? No, of course you can't. That requires empathy.

Once marriage has been redefined into something it never previously was, it really becomes just an arbitrary set of government benefits that single people (and threesomes) for some reason don't get.

The real question is "what is marriage?"

The SCOTUS is likely to decide that the federal government can decide what definition of marriage applies to federal benefits and each state can decide for itself regarding its benefits. That is just common sense.

At the time of the founding fathers, sodomy was illegal in all the colonies and later in all the states. It is Chris' claim that is alien to their world. William Blackstone described homosexual sex as description of homosexual sex as an "infamous crime against nature."

The concept of someone fighting to deny someone's pursuit of happiness as you are doing Brian, would be completely alien to the founding fathers.

Signed,

Common Sense