Loading ...Obama abandons Defense of Marriage Act
flockwoodBy PETE YOST
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s)Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.“
The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.
The move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.
“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” said Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel.
Holder’s statement said, “Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed” the Defense of Marriage Act. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still “grappling“ with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as “unnecessary and unfair.”
Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.
The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.
At a December news conference, in response to a reporters’ question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is “constantly evolving.” He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline — at this point, as he put it.
“This is something that we’re going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward,” he said.
On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.
The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the Defense of Marriage Act.
One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government’s denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
When legislation comes into conflict with the Constitution it’s a smart bet to side with the Constitution. Good man.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Marriage has meaning only as the relationship between opposites.
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Wow. I didn’t realize that it was sacrilegious for my wife and I to share interests. Our so-called “marriage” is meaningless! Forgive us, Lord!
February 24th, 2011 at 11:25 am
The “violation of the equal protections” argument is absurd. The laws regarding sexuality and marriage do apply to all people equally, all men, all women, all blacks, all whites, everyone.
Classes of people cannot be defined based on their behaviors and choices. Otherwise all law is rendered moot.
For example, anti-murder laws discriminate against those who murder. Shall we respond “how dare they single out one class of people like that” ???
That is the whole point of law, to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. Homosexual behavior is just another type of behavior. It should be made legal or illegal on its own merits. Using the “equal protections clause” is a travesty of law.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Justin, our behaviors are a reflection of who we are. Homosexuals did not decide to be attracted to members of the same sex any more than you decided to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. It’s attraction, it’s an emotion, and you cannot decide which emotions to feel and which not to feel. You may think it’s evil, because that stupid book told you so, but I don’t buy it. Love is love, and so long as it exists between consenting adults, it is none of your nor anyone else’s concern. If you religious people want to solve a real problem, get your priests and pastors to stop raping and torturing children. Homosexuals are not hurting anyone, but homosexual bigotry, based on apocryphal texts, does.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Just think about this, if gays marry and its deem legal, means extended social security benefits, marriage exemptions on taxes, health care benefits. My concern is this will open a Pandora’s box in consummating a marriage, how can you legally consummate a marriage with an act of sodomy? Think about it. This union needs another name, its not a marriage.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
You are ascribing to me religious motives, which is a common homosexual propaganda piece, but you are incorrect. Homosexuality stands condemned on purely secular grounds.
Instead of addressing my point about the inapplicability of the “equal protection clause” as a shield for a voluntary bevavior, you rely on the tired and completely debunked idea that “they are just born that way.” Apparently no amount of data proving the plasticity of human sexuality over circumstance and life span will penetrate your closed mind.
Nor have you addressed the destruction and mayhem of the homosexual lifestyle, which includes high rates of STDs, violence, drug use, jail time, mental illness, and lowered life span.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
The fourteenth amendment does protect voluntary behavior. Your religion is a choice. You could choose to belong to another if you wanted to. And I don’t have to justify the ‘homosexual lifestyle.’ Drugs, disease, jail, mental illness, etc., affect heterosexuals as well. Further, homosexuals are already among us and in relationships. Defending DOMA won’t change that. They are here, and they aren’t going anywhere. And, Perp, this is not about money; it’s about rights.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
It’s true that laws do work to influence behaviors. However some of those laws are bad. They are based on fear, prejudice, and ignorance. They serve no objective purpose.
Any good fiscal conservative ought to be glad that the administration has decided not to waste any more money and resources to fight for a law which is clearly discriminatory and is certain to be cast away, either by Congress or the courts. Any American who truly believes in freedom should celebrate.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
And, by the way, Justin, your objection to gay marriage is, in fact, based in religion. Only religious people view marriage as a “sacred” institution in need of protecting. (One wonders why God can’t protect his own sacred stuff.) Atheists like myself view nothing as sacred. No sacred books, no sacred ground, no sacred relics, no sacred unions. At its core, a marriage is little more than a property-sharing contract, no more or less important than any other contractual agreement in any objective sense. When two people enter into it, they agree to share ownership of assets. When they decide to end it, the courts divide their assets between them. Nothing about marriage (except a man-made law) demands that one party be male and the other female. That rule was invented by human beings and can be changed by human beings, should be changed I think. And I’m glad Obama agrees with me. I might vote for him again, because I love the way he makes conservatives go insane.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Cheese, it is about rights, the government has agreed to its part by acknowledging these rights and extending monetary benefits that are presently extended only to heterosexual couples that have entered into the sanctity of marriage.
The religious argument of this union is based on the consummation of the marriage.
You cannot legally consummate a marriage of a same sex couple under current law.
The fight is for the same rights as marriage yet, its a totally different lifestyle that the government has conflicting views on while the church is quite clear.
The fight is over the definition and the rights associated with the word.
The difference in terminology is tremendous.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:12 am
Can you imagine the Marriage Police, bursting into a couple’s home and threatening to annul their happy marriage because they didn’t do the nasty? It’s absurd.
There’s no telling how many M-F couples get married each year even though they are unable to have sexual relations or uninterested in doing so. If they enter the marriage contract with the mutual understanding of the arrangement and are satisfied with their lifestyle then they are legally married.
February 25th, 2011 at 8:45 am
There is no such thing as legal consummation. The law does not distinguish between marriages that have been consummated and those that have not. Yes, I agree we are arguing over semantics. That’s why I feel this debate is, to a large extent, absurd. Same sex couples are not being banned from entering into monogamous relationships or having sex. The ban only keeps them from making it official and sharing property. I married my wife in front of the Pulaski County courthouse, and the whole thing cost me a hundred bucks. Despite how special it felt to me, God had nothing to do with it. Marriage was invented by humans, for humans, and humans can redefine it if we so wish.
February 25th, 2011 at 8:57 am
You not separating church from state, cheese, thats where the battle is. The government says yes, the church says no. The influence of the church has always played a role in politics.
February 25th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Really, Perp? You’re accusing me, the only atheist on this forum, of not separating church and state? I find that hard to believe. And you have the issue backwards. We are discussing whether or not the government should mount a legal defense of DOMA. The gov is saying no, and the churches are saying yes, which doesn’t surprise me. Religious institutions are the most reactionary forces in the country.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:29 am
Obama had stated he will no longer defend DOMA. The purpose for the act was acknowledgement of interstate marriage throughout the country but it defined marriage in heterosexual terms. If you think about this, its in line with the constitution and the extending the same rights to all citizens. It then puts us back to the definition of the word marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not the same as a gay union. The objectives are different although there are similarities, the overall objectives concerning the definition of the word is totally different.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Perp, you can’t get away with saying something like that and then walking away with defending it. What are the objectives of legal marriage that (a) are always true of heterosexual couples and (b) are never true for homosexual couples?
February 26th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Jose, its a language issue, you can’t alter a word thats stood it time for one thing and then change it because you want it to mean something else.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Perp, you can’t get away with saying something like that and then walking away with defending it. Marriage is a legal concept as well as a religious one. Legal concepts are redefined all of the time. The legal definition of marriage certainly has been modified over the course of history.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:15 am
This fight is over what the word marriage means. Marriage is any sense of the word has always been about a man and a woman. It has always been about consummation. It has always had the majority view of purpose of multiplying.
Presently homosexuality fits in none of these categories in a setting without 3rd part intervention. Yes, I know you can say this can apply to heterosexuals as well, but the intent is not the same.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
It is such a dodge to say things like it’s “always been about a man and a woman” or “always been consummation”. How about facing up to a simple question: What are the objective reasons for a government to provide the institution of legal marriage? Settle that and then we can take it from there.
What you are saying is that tradition, or what you accept as tradition, is paramount, but tradition should not trump reason or fairness. Marriage used to be about women as property. That has changed. Many legal rights and social privileges used to be available only to men. That has changed. Any governmental restriction on the freedoms and rights of people must be justified. The prohibition on same sex marriage cannot be defended.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
The government does provide equally for all its constituents. Why is the gay community so set on the word “marriage” instead of the word “civil union”. This name game has come to light in the past few years. How come the gay community has to have their union called a marriage? Why is this word, that for centuries has involved a man and a woman bonded together in ceremony, which has been the basis for our social society and has always stood for a particular set of circumstances so important to the gay community! You tell me Jose, why does it have to be called marriage when the offer on the table completely covers their needs.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
“The basis for our social society”? Please. “Always stood for a particular set of circumstances”? No.
The question of whether civil unions are an adequate substitute for marriage has been addressed in several of the court opinions. I’m no lawyer but I think the problem is similar to one from more than 50 years ago. Why did school districts have to integrate when the laws clearly stated that they could just provide separate but equal facilities? The answer was obvious– segregated schools for minorities were inevitably inferior.
If marriage is just a word then there’s really no reason for you or anyone else to make such a fuss about it. Obviously it means something much more. If nothing else, that fact ought to make you think a bit harder about why it’s so important to the other folks. You both have real complaints and concerns. The main difference is what each side is being asked to sacrifice. You would have to give up the exclusive use of a word in its legal sense but otherwise your life would be unaffected. The other people would be denied the legal rights, privileges, and protections which otherwise would be granted to their most personal relationship. I’m sorry, Perplexed, but it doesn’t seem right to relegate others to a second class status just because you would be offended.
February 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Jose, read some about NARTH and get back to me!
February 26th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I prefer not to change the subject!
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality uses so-called “conversion therapy” methods that are not sanctioned or otherwise supported by any leading psychiatric or psychological professional organization. More to the point, NARTH is not regarded as any kind of authority on matters pertaining to family law. However I did notice that their mission statement says:
“We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny.”
Perhaps this means that NARTH supports the right of all citizens to accept their sexual orientation and to enjoy happy and productive lives in a legally sanctioned marriage with the partner of their choice.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
You need to review the statistics that surround homosexuality. The area of concern for me is in teens and what peer pressure causes and the effects of an abusive upbringing.
The whole fight over these words ‘marriage” and “civil union”, and the inability to see one is not the other but the same benefits apply to each, leads one to believe that the unwillingnes to compromise has underlying consequences.
February 27th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Homosexuality is quite distinct from homosex. The homosexual has the same rights as any citizen, not more nor less. Homosex, on the other hand, has not be granted the same priviledge in society.
February 27th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Perp, if you think the statistics are relevant then YOU need to cite them, explain what they mean, and put forth a clear and well-reasoned argument supported by the data. It is very easy for someone to misunderstand or misinterpret data. I have asked several times for you to clarify and support your statements, and it seems like all you do is run away from the question and then change the subject. Please have the courage to stand by your allegations.
February 27th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Jose, I can lead you to water but I can’t make you drink. NARTH is one of many organizations that feel homosexuality for the most part begins with either peer pressure, sexual abuse, or an abusive upbringing. It is not genetic. Its a peer pressure move to acceptance in most teens, that has a staggering suicide rate. Its not a healthy lifestyle.
Unless you want a society such as Europe’s that has a large pedophilia base thats largely ignored. Society in America is slowly inching towards that. Jose, you need to do your own research and stop going on raw emotions, what I present to you doesn’t seem to register. There are underlying issues that could cripple society even more than it already is.
February 27th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
“What I present to you doesn’t seem to register.” What you present are unsubstantiated and highly doubtful assertions. Some of what you say is patently absurd– people become homosexual because of peer pressure? Perplexed, that is just plain stupid. Any kid who grew up struggling with the realization that he or she was gay would tell you that. These kids hid their secret from their friends and families and especially from the church and the law. Peer pressure? It’s astonishing that you would say such a thing.
And those statistics that are so darned important but that you will not bother to cite so that someone can challenge them? Show me this, Perplexed. Let’s see a study that shows that homosexuals are more likely to be significantly more maladjusted than the average person. However, the study must account for social factors. All of the gay subjects must have lived in societies where they were accorded the same rights, freedoms, and privileges as heterosexuals. Then, and ONLY then can you possibly conclude that homosexuality causes other problems.
Some straight people are pedophiles; most gays are not. Some Christians commit suicide; most gays do not. Some conservatives have AIDS or venereal diseases; most gays do not. Yet you want to repress homosexuals who did nothing wrong other than to offend your subjective morality. It may appear like raw emotion to you, but I call it standing up for the freedom of each individual to live the life that they choose, balanced against the responsibility to cause no harm to other members of the society. It’s clear that you don’t like the mere existence of homosexuals in our society, much less accepting them as legitimate members of our society, overturning arbitrary and discriminatory laws, and legalizing the private activities between consenting adults. I’m truly sorry that these things bother you but that’s no justification for telling a person that his freedom isn’t worth that much.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:08 am
Well Jose, Its plain to see emotion has no earing on what you believe.
For the record,,I’m not homophobic.
I will get you some numbers, since you seem to be unwilling to do your our research, but I expect you will attack them with your own opinion and ignore whats presented.
My concern is history will repeat itself and trying to get you to understand that would be like trying to thread an elephant trunk through a needle.
I’ll work on this for you, give me a couple of days so I can try and meet your criteria. In the time, you need to look at US government statistics on gay lifestyles.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:42 am
That would be a good idea. When you come back, instead of talking about concerns that don’t lead anywhere please put together a real argument supported by evidence, something which can clearly be discussed and defended. For example:
“Because of the high incidence of parisitic infections due to eating undercooked pork, the FDA and USDA should impose Kosher dietary laws.”
Obviously that’s not an argment I would wish to defend. It’s only presented as a format.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Although I don’t like the practice of paraphrasing someone else’s positions, there seems no other option in this case. Perp, these are some of your key statements concerning marriage that I have gleaned from your previous posts. My responses follow.
Perp: Marriage has traditionally been one man and one woman so we should not change the laws.
Response: The one man, one woman arrangement hasn’t been exactly constant over the course of history. For a long time the model has been one man, one or more women. Apparently God approved. Tradition has its purpose but should not be used blindly as a hindrance to change. Sometimes our laws are changed to overturn tradition. It has happened in marriage laws a number of times. As a consequence we no longer permit polygamy or child marriage but we do allow interracial marriage. I approve of those changes and you probably do too. Any legal restrictions on marriage need to be justified by something other than tradition.
Perp: Marriage has been the basis for our social society.
Response: What does that even mean? That society cannot exist or function without marriage? That a person cannot be a full member of society except by being married? The expression is useless without further definition.
Perhaps you mean that legal marriage provides a valuable service for a well-functioning society. If so then we ought to enourage more people to share in this wonderful institution, not prevent them from gettimg married.
Perp: Marriage is all about consummation.
Response: Says who? Honestly, I’m offended that someone would define marriage so crudely by saying that the ONE essential component of marriage is a specific physical activity. Furthermore it must be acknowledged that a legal marriage is not necessary for engaging in sexual relations, and engaging in sexual relations is not necessary for a marriage to be legal. Perhaps what you intend to say is that a marriage can be dissolved if one party refuses to be intimate with the other. That is true to some extent but it’s important to note that a marriage is not automatically nullified in the absence of sexual intercourse. It’s highly probable that there are some happy marriages that have never been consummated. Also, sexual relations are not a defining characteristic in this regard. Just as one party may sue for annulment for refusing to have sex, there are other grounds to end the marriage when one party has entered the contract on false pretenses.
It makes no sense to argue about excluding same sex couples from obtaining legal marriages without addressing what is the purpose of marriage and why same sex marriage would be contrary to the interests of society. I have asked before and now ask again, what do you consider to be the rationale for marriage as a legal contract? It’s a simple question, and for someone like you who has given this matter so much thought there should be a quick and clear explanation.
February 28th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Jose, marraige is an institution. you know very well what assuming means.
my time is very limited, I will rebutt as promtly as I can.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:28 pm
This sentence from one of the above comments jumped out at me: “What are the objective reasons for a government to provide the institution of legal marriage? ”
I think whether government should have a role in marriage at all should be examined. I’ve heard the slippery slope argument that government getting out of marriage would lead to underage brides, animal weddings, etc. But most of those arguments are easily countered.
We already have laws protecting children from such things and we have bestiality laws relating to animals. I think we’re covered.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Oscar and Felix were opposites, right
Seriously, whatever one might think about homosexuality personally, the science is firmly on the side of it being at least to a large extent biological. Like most Christians I’m not willing to pit science and faith against each other.
One more thing: “homosex” is urban slang, right? Kind of like “gay” used to mean happy but in the 1980′s meant stupid. I don’t think that is a distinction that is meaningful to this context. I don’t see a need to be inflammatory when the kindling is already so dry. . . .
March 1st, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I heartily agree with the idea that this problem is largely due to the mingling of church and state. It sure would be a lot cleaner if one side got ownership of the marriage business and the other side butted out. Imagine what it would be like if the legal institution of marriage was abandoned and left to each church to rule as it saw fit. Governments would still offer domestic partnerships for anyone who wanted them. They wouldn’t have to be “all about consummation” either. Maybe an elderly woman would find this a convenient way to obtain legal protection and support by designating a lifelong friend and housemate as her domestic partner.
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:04 am
The consensus of the biological ties to homosexuality are changing. The only agreement is when gender domination is brought forward. It seems that early adolescence is when sexuality is determined. I’m still working on this Jose.
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:10 am
So, if both agree on this, and they do. How can it be genetic. Your not born with it, yet something triggers it. This is where problem arise. Left says its brought on by environment, abuse, upbringing, so forth. Right says its a natural occurrence, yet its not present at birth which means it would have to be a learned behavior and progress from there. If the left is right,social stigma, knowing development from abuse. If the right is right, behavioral change, not genetic.
Marriage is next.
March 2nd, 2011 at 2:17 pm
What part of ‘show us a study’ do you not understand, Perp? This should very easy. Use this format: Blank demonstrates in the blank issue of blank that homosexuals are more likely to blank. All we need you to do is fill in those blanks, and we can go from there. We do not need you to explain the research, just tell us where you’re getting your information from.
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Perp, you misuse the word “genetic”. It does not mean “innate”. A person can be born with certain characteristics or inclinations that are not genetically based.
You assert a lot of things that are arguable or doubtful. I don’t think it is commonly agreed that sexual orientation is set during adolescence. And for your “left says, right says” comments, they are debatable at best and I really don’t give a flip about them anyway. You seem to care a lot about the political positions. What really matters is the truth, regardless of whether that makes any particular set of folks uncomfortable.
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I’m trying to find the truth Jose, I’m reading the research and trying to reamin objective to the material. If I can find this material, why couldn’t anybody else.
Cheese, if I present a thesis, are you going to present me with my doctorate?
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:09 am
Jose, what appears to genetic can be learned behaviors. Genetic tagging isn’t a life sentence, it means awareness and being focused.
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:56 am
Perp, you don’t get it. I don’t want a thesis; I want your source, not a matter of opinion, a simple fact. Plus, you’re getting off topic with all this nature-nurture stuff. It doesn’t matter how homosexuality arises, everyone knows that it does by some means or another. We want to know why legalizing same sex marriage will tear apart the basic fabric of society, which is a summation of your argument against it. What havoc will it create, and why should the state be interested in using its powers to prevent it from happening? That is what we are talking about.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:41 am
Perp, if you want to argue that sexual orientation is acquired rather than innate then go ahead and present your case. All I’m saying is that it is entirely possible that one is born with a particularly sexual orientation even though genes might not be involved. There are some characteristics at birth that are not hereditary. And as cheese says, the question of how or when sexual orientation is established is not particularly germane. This thread started with the issue of whether the state should allow same sex marriage.
March 6th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Madge, homosex means sexual relations between persons of the same sex. Our society has not granted homosex the same status as sex between male and female and I doubt that it ever will.
March 6th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“has not granted…the same status”
Maybe this phrase is intended to be profound but it sure seems shallow. To the extent that the statement might be true (and actually means something), so what? Should the state criminalize any action that differs from historic cultural norms?
March 8th, 2011 at 5:23 am
Jose, everything I have read inn the past few days indicates that sexual orientation is a product of environment and its formed as a child develops its sexual awareness. Its caused by several things, as discussed before, inadequate parent participation, exposure to drug or alcohol abuse, and/or sexual abuse. There is no indication of a predetermined sexual preference in DNA thats solid. In short, society has produced homosexuality.
The real question is, in homosexuality is the thought process complete..
Marriage is and has always been about a man and a woman. The gay community wants to change the definition of the word which leave the 50 million couples wondering what there relationship with the opposite sex will be called. In essence, “It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it for the rest of us”.
Think about a gay society, how long would it take for it to die out? With reproduction at the bottom of the list, look at what the gene pool would lose over time.
I’m a firm believer in NARTH and their practices.
Jose, my question to you, as you reveiw the research available, what is your justification for believing this behavior is acceptable, a gay child?
March 8th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
“everything I have read inn (sic) the past few days”
Not a very convincing point if you’re limiting yourself to NARTH and its ideological brethren. That’s like claiming to be an expert on religion because you’ve read everything by Christopher Hitchens, but nothing else.
“sexual orientation is a product of environment and its (sic) formed as a child develops its sexual awareness”
I strongly doubt that my heterosexuality was caused by my upbringing. You can speculate about your own orientation.
“50 million couples wondering what there (sic) relationship with the opposite sex will be called”
That’s easy. Marriage.
“gay society”
Huh? What is that and who is promoting it? Do you know anyone who wants to criminalize all heterosexual behavior? I don’t, not a single person. And you oppose same sex marriage because you’re worried that the human race will die out? That’s just stupid. In case you didn’t realize, a lot of straight people are childless by choice. They may outnumber gays. If you are willing to tolerate a straight person choosing to be childless then what difference would it make to the population numbers if that person was a practicing homosexual instead?
Perp, I guess we are done. Frank’s little forum works well when people offer up interesting ideas and substantiate them. You, on the other hand, keep making questionable assertions without any meaningful basis or evidence. That’s a shame because we could both learn something from an honest discussion on this subject.