http://www.flc.org/hfl/marriage/mar-flf04.htm
Although the Bible identifies many of the blessings and benefits associated with a vibrant and committed marriage, recent research has revealed a few more.

· Married people are much happier and likely to be less unhappy than any other group of people (Waite, 2000). Dr. Linda Waite also found that the incidence of mental illness is lower in married people as compared with unmarried or divorced people.

· Married people live up to eight years longer than divorced or never-married people.

· Married people suffer from long-term illnesses much less than those who are unmarried (Murphy et al., 1997).

· Married men are more financially successful. They earn 10-40% more than unmarried men (Waite & Gallagher, 2000).

· Married people save more. Couples in their 50's and 60's had net worth per person almost double that of divorcees, widows or other unmarried people (Smith, 1995).

· Married people are less likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse.

· People who are married have twice the amount of sex as single people and report greater levels of satisfaction in the area of sexual intimacy.

The benefits of marriage aren't just for the married spouses, either. In addition, the children of married parents (gay adoption, my note) are less likely to...
· engage in criminal behavior
· live at the poverty level
· abuse drugs and alcohol
· experience emotional and psychological problems
· become pregnant out of wedlock
· experience academic failure

By all means, let's prevent a large segment of the population from receiving the same benefits as non-homosexual couples.

Why do you hate Americans?

Sorry Jay but I have to disagree with you on gay marraige. How many of the "gay" parades like they have in S. F. could you stand. Eeeeu. But again that's what makes the USA the great nation it is-to each his own. Hey! I beat "pucker puss" (lee lee) in making the 1st post.

Barney...yawn...but

Marriage is defined by: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Have you stopped beating your gay lover?

Damn!! Old "'google beat me. Uhhh why would he hate Americans just because he believes in gay marriage? You believe in being a liberal--to you hate Americans? Uhhhh?

"Although the Bible identifies many of the blessings and benefits associated with a vibrant and committed marriage, recent research has revealed a few more."

And the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. No where in the bible is same sex marriage spoken of or approved of. Indeed homosexuality is considered a sin, and something to flee from and repent of.

There is no proof that same sex marriage will have the same benefits of traditional marriage.

You are grasping at straws when you quote the bible in an argument for same sex marriage.

This matter should be left to the states. Period.

Here in California, we have a Domestic Partner law. DP couples have the same "spousal" rights as married couples. It does not affect federal law.

This DP law, by the way, also applies to hetersexual couples as long as one of them is 62 or older. This enables older people to have "spousal" benefits here without putting their federal survivor's benefits in peril.

The Legislature passed the law. It has since been upgraded twice. It was signed by two governors, including Arnold.

This is how it's supposed to work. Leave the courts out of it.

I don't personally have a problem with gay marriage, but I thinl since the vast majority of Americans who've had the chance to vote on the issue oppose it, perhaps a compromise can be reached. For example, allowing gays to enter into something pretty much exactly like marrage from a legal standpoint, but call it something else.

The reason I say this is because I think the reason most people who voted for gay marrage bans did not do so for "biblical" reasons, but instead did so because they feel it somehow cheapens or discredits the institution. I believe that the institution has already been seriously cheapened and dicreditied by the left and the "secular values" (as opposed to moral values) they been pushing on this nation since the 60's and allowing gays to marry will not significantly add to the damage the left and their culture of litigation have already done.

One exception I have is that of gay couples raising children. I believe a lot more research needs to be done to determine whether or not it is detrimental to the child. If reputable, unbiased researchers can demonstrate that being raised by gays does not have any negative, un-intended consequences on the children, than I'd be fine with that too.

Yeah, but why is it so important to call it marriage? the legality is that marriage is legally defined as a legal union between man and woman.

gays can commit to each other for life and call it anything they want, except marriage, and be just as legal. Someone metnioned the Califonrnia law for Domestic Partners.

On a side note... One thing I am very much opposed to is new "rights" being created by judicial diktat, as is the case with gay marriage in Mass. and Roe v. Wade. That is sooooo horribly wrong. fascist, and evil.

Even if it were something I supported, like say for example the Supreme Court ruling that income tax was unconstitutional, I would still say it is worng.

But I want it done right, by and with the approval of the people. The way Massachusetts did it... is simply postponing and worsening the inevitable public debate and decision on the matter.

Couldn't you say the same thing about desegregation?

One thing I am very much opposed to is new "rights" being created by judicial diktat, as is the case with gay marriage in Mass. and Roe v. Wade. That is sooooo horribly wrong. fascist, and evil.

But it happens to be the very design of our legal system. Why do you hate America?

"But it happens to be the very design of our legal system."

That's clearly untrue. James Madison believed the judicial system, as he and the founders designed it, would be the least dangerous branch of the government.

The left, by appointing so many judicial fascists to the bench (or blocking the appointment of non-fascist judges) in the last 50 years has caused the problems we have today.

The way the founders designed the system the judiciary role was simply to administer the law. The left has changed that so now the judges can create laws and change existing laws if they do not comform to the left's worldview.

I do not hate America. I hate what the modern left wing has done to America.

Very classy post.

Brian you ought to remember it was the the courts that ruled that segregation was legal in the first place. Plessy vs Ferguson among others.

P. Bunyan,

Fascist Judges are right wing judges. Please refer to left leaning judges as socialist judges, communist judges, or if you prefer goddless-commie-pinko-fag judges.

Thanks. It's important to keep all of this straight for everyone. Accuracy counts.

John

PS: Please stop hating America. She loves you. Why won't you return her calls?

How about those of us who believe that the "Bible" is not the supreme word on everything. To many of us, the "Bible" and I mean the "Old Testiment" is a product of a long oral history of the only true religion. Point being the religous right (Christians) has hijacked the Republican party to the point that if you don't believe their version of the truth you are some how morally corrupt. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Whatever happened to Republicans believing in a small government that stayed out of your personal business. Bring back Goldwater!

Clash City Rocker has voiced what a large number of disenfranchised Republicans are feeling these days -- that the Evangelical Right has driven their ideology too far and deep into the Republican platform.. Is anyone listening?

Clinton on the "Ideological Right":

Clinton said the growing strength in recent decades of the "ideological, right-wing" elements of the Republican Party had been realized in
President George W. Bush's administration and the Republican-led Congress.

"This is the first time when on a consistent basis the most conservative and ideological wing of the Republican Party had both the executive and the legislative branch," Clinton said.

"They believe the country is best served by the maximum concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the right people -- right in both senses," he said.

"They favor unilateralism whenever possible and cooperation when it's unavoidable," he added.

He said the philosophy did not serve the country well.

"If you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time," he said.

Wow, he nailed that one.

Right, but that clarifies my point. Which court was "wrong, fascist, and evil"? The ones who legalized segregation, or the ones who struck it down? If the answer is "the one I disagree with", then that's just a hateful argument, not a legal one.

Lee....If that ideology is based on facts, who cares what others think?

James Madison believed the judicial system... would be the least dangerous branch of the government.

Least dangerous because they couldn't initiate action, they could only react to it. That doesn't mean he thought they would roll over for the legislative or executive branches whenever they disagreed.

The way the founders designed the system the judiciary role was simply to administer the law.

"Interpret" the law. But OK...

The left has changed that so now the judges can create laws and change existing laws if they do not comform to the left's worldview.

Judges have always created laws by their precedents. To claim that this is a "change" perpetrated by "the left" is highly disingenuous, and denies a basic tenet of our judicial system.

Even if it were something I supported, like say for example the Supreme Court ruling that income tax was unconstitutional, I would still say it is worng.

You can certainly disagree with a decision. But that's entirely different from believing it was "wrong" for a court to reach it.

Judges have always created laws by their precedents. To claim that this is a "change" perpetrated by "the left" is highly disingenuous, and denies a basic tenet of our judicial system.

Brian, now I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but I think it's the Legislative branch of the government creates laws. Judges rule on how they interpert those laws.

Brian, them "creating" laws by their precedents is a misnomer, they alter the interpretations of the laws CREATED by the legislature, to be EXECUTED by the Executive Branch. The Ultimate check on the Judicial System is that they MUST work within the bounds of the US Constitution. The problem is that many judges often interpret the Constitution to their own mindset instead of interpreting the laws to the constitutional mindset.

And the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. No where in the bible is same sex marriage spoken of or approved of.

Or disapproved of.

Indeed homosexuality is considered a sin, and something to flee from and repent of.

And the Bible says don't eat rabbit, lobster, shrimp, and pork. It forbids women from wearing red dresses, and declares abomination for all who wear clothing made of mixed fabrics. It bars from ministry anyone with any physical defect. It argues for a return to slavery, and that women are forbidden to speak in church.

I'm not going to get in a Bible debate here, and anyone can use Google as well as I can. But you are grasping at straws when you quote the bible in an argument against same sex marriage.

And the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. No where in the bible is same sex marriage spoken of or approved of.

Or disapproved of.

Brian....you so funny....marriages to camels and a Wine tax on water turned to wine is not in there either.

Yes, yes, I said above that judges "interpret" the law. I was responding to P. Bunyan's "create" terminology. I can certainly buy the description that judges "create" law by changing the interpretation of existing law.

The Ultimate check on the Judicial System is that they MUST work within the bounds of the US Constitution.

I would guess that every SCOTUS judge ever appointed would claim that they do.

The problem is that many judges often interpret the Constitution to their own mindset instead of interpreting the laws to the constitutional mindset.

I think the problem is something else. I think the problem is that people who disagree with judges' opinions accuse them of interpreting the Constitution to their own mindset, and therefore become "activist judges". But people who agree with judges' decisions praise them as being truly wise.

Checks have to end somewhere. There needs to be a final arbiter. We don't have an Ultra Supreme Court. You either believe in the integrity of the system, or you don't. But to praise it when it agrees with you and call it "fascist" when it doesn't is mindless.

marriages to camels and a Wine tax on water turned to wine is not in there either.

Yes, exactly! That's why it's grasping at straws to cite the Bible to prove a point either way. Glad we agree.

"And the bible says that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Nowhere in the bible is same sex spoken of or approved of."

Or disproved of.

Right! This kind of behavior brought about the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah..The wages of sin are death.

Right! This kind of behavior brought about the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah..The wages of sin are death.

If you believe that fine, but that doesn't mean I have to, and it doesn't make it fact.

I love how all these Nuevo-Christians believe
blind faith absolves them of all responsibilty, think for yourselves, form an opinion not that of the RR (religious right), stand up and state a point formed from free thought.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

OK, that appears to me that the Federal government, through the legislature, has the right to restrict the legal covenants that one state must recognize by another state.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, says:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Not much of a legal case: the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage by another state.

Period.

GBarney wrote:
By all means, let's prevent a large segment of the population from receiving the same benefits as non-homosexual couples.

Uh, sense when is less than 5% of the population considered "a large segment"?

Try again.

Yes, exactly! That's why it's grasping at straws to cite the Bible to prove a point either way. Glad we agree.

Actually it is possible to quote the Bible to prove a point. The problem is there are way too many unmarried marriage counselers out there.

Still it doesn't dilute the fact that a legal marriage is between a man and a woman. And you don't need the Bible to state that. That's the law.

There would be no reason for states to ban same sex marriages if judges made their decisions on existing law. The term "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron. Like almost perfect. ot this.

Uh, sense when is less than 5% of the population considered "a large segment"?

Jews and African-Americans are also not a "large segment". What's your point?

ClashCityRocker

"If you believe that fine,but it doesnt mean I have to..And it doesnt make it fact."

Its historical fact, not My belief..

I care not what you believe or dont believe, the sun will still rise tomorrow regardless rather you think it will or not.

There are absolutes.

914 -

Its historical fact, not My belief..
There inlays the rub.

You may believe and have faith that it is historical fact, I on the other hand believe it to be a story and a morality play, and until someone can show me the cities and the salt statue I will continue to believe that is all it is.

Jews and African-Americans are also not a "large segment". What's your point?

Well, Brian, what percentage do you designate for a large segment? I think that's the point.

ClashCity

Do you even believe the Roman empire existed? or Babylon, Greece? Where did our civilization start? surely there must be a starting point in history!!