SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

by Obnoxious Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:58 am

I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.

by southindian Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:12 pm

Appalamma wrote:I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.

I was not. The window of opportunities is now open wide. Goats, camels, dogs, horses to be include in the list next.

by Idéfix Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:18 pm

Great news! I always expected DOMA to be struck down. It is blatant and unconstitutional discrimination, even for a Roberts-Scalia court. They let the Federal district court ruling on Prop 8 stand, without making a broader case that applies to other states. Time for me to change back my profile picture.

by Idéfix Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:18 pm

southindian wrote:
Appalamma wrote:I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.
I was not. The window of opportunities is now open wide. Goats, camels, dogs, horses to be include in the list next.

That's what they said when miscegenation laws were repealed.

by southindian Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:29 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Appalamma wrote:I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.
I was not. The window of opportunities is now open wide. Goats, camels, dogs, horses to be include in the list next.
That's what they said when miscegenation laws were repealed.

Is it? Where?

by iTEDx Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:30 pm

Appalamma wrote:I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.

Great news! Equality for all

by Idéfix Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:45 pm

southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Appalamma wrote:I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.
I was not. The window of opportunities is now open wide. Goats, camels, dogs, horses to be include in the list next.
That's what they said when miscegenation laws were repealed.
Is it? Where?

Yes. In the landmark case Loving. v. Virginia that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 1967.

http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/01/08/unchanging-face-of-bigotry-arguments-against-equal-marriage-are-the-same-as-those-used-against-inter-racial-marriage/

by iTEDx Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:49 pm

http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/20/11-ted-talks-about-equality-of-all-kinds/

by Idéfix Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:22 pm

southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Appalamma wrote:I wasnt expecting it to go any other way.
I was not. The window of opportunities is now open wide. Goats, camels, dogs, horses to be include in the list next.
That's what they said when miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional ~~repealed~~.
Is it? Where?

Yes. In the landmark Loving. v. Virginia decision of 1967 in which the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws as unconstitutional.

http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/01/08/unchanging-face-of-bigotry-arguments-against-equal-marriage-are-the-same-as-those-used-against-inter-racial-marriage/

* fixed to make it clearer *

by southindian Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:41 pm

One place of work had several internal network groups and one of them was PRIDE. As bachelor, I didn't know what PRIDE was and signed up for a get-together of new members. In the process I read LGBT or something on their page. I knew what LGBT was, so declined the invite when it landed in outlook.

I don't how these people can take a hobby to this level. Back home I know a few normal humans who lived together after they lost their spouses, but never shouted to get a marriage license.

Tax breaks, money, inheritance, tax breaks...did I say tax breaks... can make LGBTs do anything to get a marriage tag. They have it now.

by Petrichor Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:25 pm

Wondering if I should send a congratulatory message to a couple!

by Obnoxious Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:49 pm

southindian wrote:One place of work had several internal network groups and one of them was PRIDE. As bachelor, I didn't know what PRIDE was and signed up for a get-together of new members. In the process I read LGBT or something on their page. I knew what LGBT was, so declined the invite when it landed in outlook.

I don't how these people can take a hobby to this level. Back home I know a few normal humans who lived together after they lost their spouses, but never shouted to get a marriage license.

What hobby are we talking about here?

Tax breaks, money, inheritance, tax breaks...did I say tax breaks... can make LGBTs do anything to get a marriage tag. They have it now.

Yes! Marriage is all about tax breaks & property rights! That is the case even for heterosexual couples.

by Idéfix Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:05 pm

southindian wrote:I don't how these people can take a hobby to this level.

Sexual orientation is not a hobby. If you are secure in your own sexual orientation, you have nothing to fear from LGBT organizations at your workplace. Many of those organizations usually welcome straight folks as allies.

southindian wrote:Back home I know a few normal humans who lived together after they lost their spouses, but never shouted to get a marriage license.

Gay people are normal human beings. Homophobia is abnormal, not homosexuality.

southindian wrote:Tax breaks, money, inheritance, tax breaks...did I say tax breaks... can make LGBTs do anything to get a marriage tag. They have it now.

If you get married, it is presumably for better reasons than tax breaks, but if others you are irrationally prejudiced against do, that's because they want the tax breaks!

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:11 pm

as we have seen repeatedly, many homophobes have turned out to be closet gays. i urge all homophobes to freely come out of the closet. jump in, the water is clear. now is the time. do it. you'll feel a lot lighter in spirit.

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:20 pm

Il Professore, just like you find the thought of a union of egg and Dosa or chicken and Dosa, unnatural and revolting, there are others who find the thought of a union of a man with another man or a woman with another woman revolting. By your logic, are you a closet egg-dosa afficianado

by Petrichor Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:25 pm

Hellsulu...by your logic there are some that find a man-cat union unnatural and revolting...in fact, you might even be one of them. does that make you a man-cat afficianado?

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:28 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Hellsulu...by your logic there are some that find a man-cat union unnatural and revolting...in fact, you might even be one of them. does that make you a man-cat afficianado?

Newsflash: Dear saved by the son father, whose story I shall post later, that wasn't my logic. That was Il Professore's logic.

by Petrichor Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:30 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Hellsulu...by your logic there are some that find a man-cat union unnatural and revolting...in fact, you might even be one of them. does that make you a man-cat afficianado?

Newsflash: Dear saved by the son father, whose story I shall post later, that wasn't my logic. That was Il Professore's logic.

Angry, much?

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:31 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Hellsulu...by your logic there are some that find a man-cat union unnatural and revolting...in fact, you might even be one of them. does that make you a man-cat afficianado?

Newsflash: Dear saved by the son father, whose story I shall post later, that wasn't my logic. That was Il Professore's logic.

Angry, much?

Not at all. Just amused by the antics you used in all 3 cases.

by Petrichor Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:41 pm

Mr.Man-Cat... There have been very few times that you have actually managed to argue a point without resorting to ad-hominem attacks in your history of posts on this site. Your idea of a retort is revealing personal information of Such'ers. Please amuse yourself.

by bw Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:50 pm

snoopy, better to hold off?

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:58 pm

bw wrote:snoopy, better to hold off?

Hmm. OK. Enjoy your holiday!

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:43 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Il Professore, just like you find the thought of a union of egg and Dosa or chicken and Dosa, unnatural and revolting, there are others who find the thought of a union of a man with another man or a woman with another woman revolting. By your logic, are you a closet egg-dosa afficianado

ridiculous and labored analogy. expressing dislike for a food pairing and expressing dislike for a lifestyle are hardly equivalent! the list of homophobes who turned out to be gay is long. there is no denying that. for starters look up ted haggard, larry craig, and bob allen. all worthies with the obvious political leaning.

i don't care that homophobes find man-man and woman-woman pairings revolting. they are entitled to their dislikes, just as long as their dislikes don't impact the rights of other people. i don't think i ever asked you not to eat a beef-kheema dosai or called for a ban on beef-kheema dosais. i also didn't ask it to be sold with a higher sales tax because i don't like it. eat all the kheema-dosais you want. knock yourself out. in fact i encourage you to come up with even more ridiculous combos so we can make fun of you.

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Il Professore, just like you find the thought of a union of egg and Dosa or chicken and Dosa, unnatural and revolting, there are others who find the thought of a union of a man with another man or a woman with another woman revolting. By your logic, are you a closet egg-dosa afficianado

ridiculous and labored analogy. expressing dislike for a food pairing and expressing dislike for a lifestyle are hardly equivalent! the list of homophobes who turned out to be gay is long. there is no denying that. for starters look up ted haggard, larry craig, and bob allen. all worthies with the obvious political leaning.

i don't care that homophobes find man-man and woman-woman pairings revolting. they are entitled to their dislikes, just as long as their dislikes don't impact the rights of other people. i don't think i ever asked you not to eat a beef-kheema dosai or called for a ban on beef-kheema dosais. i also didn't ask it to be sold with a higher sales tax because i don't like it. eat all the kheema-dosais you want. knock yourself out. in fact i encourage you to come up with even more ridiculous combos so we can make fun of you.

Your long list is rather short. There will be hypocrites in both ends of the political spectrum. For the record, I oppose gay marriage purely on practical grounds, for similar reasons as to why I think polyamorous marriages would not work. They already had civil unions which I think would have worked well. But your categorizing all homophobes as closet gays was a typical extreme liberal argument. They are entitled to their opposition for religious or personal reasons kinda like how you feel about north Indians.

PS: Since you are a star trek fan. Did any episode depict happy gay love in the distant future? Just curious, since they were the first to show an interracial kiss on TV.

by SomeProfile Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote:For the record, I oppose gay marriage purely on practical grounds

Such as...?

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:08 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:For the record, I oppose gay marriage purely on practical grounds

Such as...?

Maybe tomorrow. Don't have the patience for it now. But some of it has to do with immigration benefits, adoptions, alimony in case of divorce and such.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:52 am

Hellsangel wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:For the record, I oppose gay marriage purely on practical grounds

Such as...?

Maybe tomorrow. Don't have the patience for it now. But some of it has to do with immigration benefits, adoptions, alimony in case of divorce and such.

What practical issue to do with immigration makes you oppose gay marriage?

by Impedimenta Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:28 am

"jesus wept" - Huckabee.

you are all going to the four letter H word. just saying.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:35 am

Impedimenta wrote:"jesus wept" - Huckabee.

you are all going to the four letter H word. just saying.

"going to" the four-letter word?

"just saying?" you shouldn't. not this way.

by Impedimenta Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:54 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
Impedimenta wrote:"jesus wept" - Huckabee.

you are all going to the four letter H word. just saying.
"going to" the four-letter word?

"just saying?" you shouldn't. not this way.

aiyooo kadavule, enna mattum kaapathuppa. go stand in the corner until the end of my day.

by Maria S Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:57 am

Impedimenta wrote:"jesus wept" - Huckabee.

you are all going to the four letter H word. just saying.

Did not know you listen to Huckabee and even repeat what he says so casually!

Quite revealing and interesting!

by Maria S Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:15 am

*In case..anyone is remotely curious about why Jesus wept (to us believers- it's powerful).."let me place it in context"..don't want to mislead anyone.

It was when he went to visit the family- sisters of Lazarus after he had died..he was terribly moved seeing his friends cry and mourn..which can raise theological questions.

by Propagandhi711 Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:50 am

that must be one heavy scrotum if it crushed the doma

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:57 am

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:I don't how these people can take a hobby to this level.
Sexual orientation is not a hobby. If you are secure in your own sexual orientation, you have nothing to fear from LGBT organizations at your workplace. Many of those organizations usually welcome straight folks as allies.

southindian wrote:Back home I know a few normal humans who lived together after they lost their spouses, but never shouted to get a marriage license.
Gay people are normal human beings. Homophobia is abnormal, not homosexuality.

southindian wrote:Tax breaks, money, inheritance, tax breaks...did I say tax breaks... can make LGBTs do anything to get a marriage tag. They have it now.
If you get married, it is presumably for better reasons than tax breaks, but if others you are irrationally prejudiced against do, that's because they want the tax breaks!

Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.

by Obnoxious Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:19 pm

southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:I don't how these people can take a hobby to this level.
Sexual orientation is not a hobby. If you are secure in your own sexual orientation, you have nothing to fear from LGBT organizations at your workplace. Many of those organizations usually welcome straight folks as allies.

southindian wrote:Back home I know a few normal humans who lived together after they lost their spouses, but never shouted to get a marriage license.
Gay people are normal human beings. Homophobia is abnormal, not homosexuality.

southindian wrote:Tax breaks, money, inheritance, tax breaks...did I say tax breaks... can make LGBTs do anything to get a marriage tag. They have it now.
If you get married, it is presumably for better reasons than tax breaks, but if others you are irrationally prejudiced against do, that's because they want the tax breaks!

Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.

I am convinced that you are a troll.

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:28 pm

Appalamma wrote:
southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:I don't how these people can take a hobby to this level.
Sexual orientation is not a hobby. If you are secure in your own sexual orientation, you have nothing to fear from LGBT organizations at your workplace. Many of those organizations usually welcome straight folks as allies.

southindian wrote:Back home I know a few normal humans who lived together after they lost their spouses, but never shouted to get a marriage license.
Gay people are normal human beings. Homophobia is abnormal, not homosexuality.

southindian wrote:Tax breaks, money, inheritance, tax breaks...did I say tax breaks... can make LGBTs do anything to get a marriage tag. They have it now.
If you get married, it is presumably for better reasons than tax breaks, but if others you are irrationally prejudiced against do, that's because they want the tax breaks!

Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.
I am convinced that you are a troll.

LOL! Is it because I oppose gay hobby? Appalamma, is it true? Smile

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:33 pm

southindian wrote:Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.

It is your belief about homosexuality that is silly and funny. Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. Do you think those species also have "hobbies"?

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Idéfix wrote:
What practical issue to do with immigration makes you oppose gay marriage?

There is enough fraud as it is with heterosexual marriages when it comes to immigration benefits, which is a federal benefit. Now they have opened a much wider door for fraud with fake gay marriages.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
What practical issue to do with immigration makes you oppose gay marriage?

There is enough fraud as it is with heterosexual marriages when it comes to immigration benefits, which is a federal benefit. Now they have opened a much wider door for fraud with fake gay marriages.

If you are opposed to same-sex marriage because of the rare case of a sham marriage to obtain immigration benefit, are you also opposed to heterosexual marriage that will produce approximately 50 times more such cases of fraud?

There is a fairly rigorous process that immigration officials use to ensure that the marriage of an applicant is genuine. I don't see why the same process that's used with 98% of the population can't be used with the remaining 2% of population.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:05 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
What practical issue to do with immigration makes you oppose gay marriage?

There is enough fraud as it is with heterosexual marriages when it comes to immigration benefits, which is a federal benefit. Now they have opened a much wider door for fraud with fake gay marriages.
If you are opposed to same-sex marriage because of the rare case of a sham marriage to obtain immigration benefit, are you also opposed to heterosexual marriage that will produce approximately 50 times more such cases of fraud?

There is a fairly rigorous process that immigration officials use to ensure that the marriage of an applicant is genuine. I don't see why the same process that's used with 98% of the population can't be used with the remaining 2% of population.

You seem so sure about it. But you do agree that gays form at most 2% of the population?

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:23 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
What practical issue to do with immigration makes you oppose gay marriage?

There is enough fraud as it is with heterosexual marriages when it comes to immigration benefits, which is a federal benefit. Now they have opened a much wider door for fraud with fake gay marriages.
If you are opposed to same-sex marriage because of the rare case of a sham marriage to obtain immigration benefit, are you also opposed to heterosexual marriage that will produce approximately 50 times more such cases of fraud?

There is a fairly rigorous process that immigration officials use to ensure that the marriage of an applicant is genuine. I don't see why the same process that's used with 98% of the population can't be used with the remaining 2% of population.

You seem so sure about it. But you do agree that gays form at most 2% of the population?

Yes, openly gay people are likely around 2% of the general population, although they may make up a larger percentage in the less homophobic parts of the country.

But you didn't answer the question... are you opposed to legal recognition for heterosexual marriage, because it causes 50 times more immigration fraud than gay marriage?

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:28 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Yes, openly gay people are likely around 2% of the general population, although they may make up a larger percentage in the less homophobic parts of the country.

True. San Francisco is queerer than most parts of the country. And I mean that literally.

Idéfix wrote:
But you didn't answer the question... are you opposed to legal recognition for heterosexual marriage, because it causes 50 times more immigration fraud than gay marriage?

It is quite simple - when it comes to immigration fraud, gay marriages will follow the 80-20 rule.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:35 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
But you didn't answer the question... are you opposed to legal recognition for heterosexual marriage, because it causes 50 times more immigration fraud than gay marriage?
It is quite simple - when it comes to immigration fraud, gay marriages will follow the 80-20 rule.

What is that rule? If it is "quite simple," why don't you explain simply what your concern is? If there is a "quite simple" argument against gay marriage to do with immigration fraud, why do you think the defendants of DOMA didn't bring it up in front of SCOTUS, and the dissenting justices didn't comment on it?

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:40 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.
It is your belief about homosexuality that is silly and funny. Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. Do you think those species also have "hobbies"?

Defects occur everywhere and homosexuality is same as defect in sexual relations. You can't give Six Sigma protection to sexuality and I find it silly, funny even if homosexuality defect occurs more than 3 per million. I hope this hobby remains as it is. An aberration and a defect to a natural man-woman relationship.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:46 pm

Idéfix wrote:
What is that rule? If it is "quite simple," why don't you explain simply what your concern is? If there is a "quite simple" argument against gay marriage to do with immigration fraud, why do you think the defendants of DOMA didn't bring it up in front of SCOTUS, and the dissenting justices didn't comment on it?

*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is. It is not as simple as just immigration fraud. This is going to cause a lot of headaches. All in the name of that Liberal trait of appeasing that '2%.' Kind of ironic that they had the 'We are the 90%' movement.

BTW, isn't it discrimination to recognize gay marriages from another country where it is legal, for the purpose of immigration benefits while denying immigration benefits to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wives of a man from a Middle Eastern country where polygamy is legal?

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:58 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
What is that rule? If it is "quite simple," why don't you explain simply what your concern is? If there is a "quite simple" argument against gay marriage to do with immigration fraud, why do you think the defendants of DOMA didn't bring it up in front of SCOTUS, and the dissenting justices didn't comment on it?

*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is. It is not as simple as just immigration fraud. This is going to cause a lot of headaches. All in the name of that Liberal trait of appeasing that '2%.' Kind of ironic that they had the 'We are the 99%' movement.

BTW, isn't it discrimination to recognize gay marriages from another country where it is legal, for the purpose of immigration benefits while denying immigration benefits to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wives of a man from a Middle Eastern country where polygamy is legal?

Correction above

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:00 pm

Hellsangel wrote:*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is.

No, I don't. Why don't you say what you mean?

Hellsangel wrote:It is not as simple as just immigration fraud.

Before you try to add other arguments, why don't you first tackle the very first reason you gave?

Hellsangel wrote:This is going to cause a lot of headaches.

Pretty much all progress in society causes a lot of headaches.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:02 pm

southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.
It is your belief about homosexuality that is silly and funny. Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. Do you think those species also have "hobbies"?
Defects occur everywhere and homosexuality is same as defect in sexual relations. You can't give Six Sigma protection to sexuality and I find it silly, funny even if homosexuality defect occurs more than 3 per million. I hope this hobby remains as it is. An aberration and a defect to a natural man-woman relationship.

The only defect here is in your thinking.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:05 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is.
No, I don't. Why don't you say what you mean?

You could look this up in Wikipedia, if you want.

Hellsangel wrote:It is not as simple as just immigration fraud.
Before you try to add other arguments, why don't you first tackle the very first reason you gave?

I gave you another reason above. And you seem to have this romantic notion that fraud is quickly spotted in the immigration system.

Hellsangel wrote:This is going to cause a lot of headaches.
Pretty much all progress in society causes a lot of headaches.

This one more so than most others. And of course Liberals will call change Progress when it suits their agenda.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:14 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is.
No, I don't. Why don't you say what you mean?

You could look this up in Wikipedia, if you want.

Wikipedia doesn't say how the 80-20 rule applies to gay marriage and immigration fraud. That's your own unique claim -- one that even the defenders of DOMA didn't advance, and the dissenting justices on the bench did not cite. So you will have to do your own explaining.

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:It is not as simple as just immigration fraud.
Before you try to add other arguments, why don't you first tackle the very first reason you gave?
I gave you another reason above. And you seem to have this romantic notion that fraud is quickly spotted in the immigration system.

Let us say, for the moment, that it is not. Given that with marriage equality straight marriages occur approximately 50 times more often than gay marriages, you should be more opposed to legal recognition for straight marriages than to gay marriage. Are you?

by Sponsored content