Ninth Circuit rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.

[Free Palestine]

/thread

[milhouse24]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

[milhouse24]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

I believe that you, sir or madam, are a heartless, cynical being whose ideas are not based in any sort of reality and should be banned.

[CelticHoosier1993]

Another victory in the ongoing battle for marriage equality.

[Free Palestine]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

So people who are sterile or simply do not want to have kids should not be allowed to get married?

[memphis]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

None of those concerns are specific to same-sex marriage. If anything, the sham marriages are more likely without same-sex marriage because gays are more willing to give away the marriage boat for a friend. Why not if you're never going to be able to use marriage in a legitimate way. I used to work with a lesbian who legally married a Mexican friend to help him with his immigration situation. I doubt very much she would have been willing to do that if she had a chance at a "real" marraige.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You have to determine that a fetus is a legal person first if you want to use the Fourteenth that way.

Nobody of note has ever denied that gays and lesbians are legal persons.

Give JCL time.

Nice try. What do you get when a male human and a female human made in the image of God have relations? A baby human is what you get. Natural Law dictates that said child in the womb should be protected. Natural Law determined that the baby in the womb is a legal person.

Gays and lesbians are legal people. It's their personal choices of a most intimate manner that are contrary to that Natural Law that God set in place. If I denied gays and lesbians legal personhood it would be as bad as those who deny childern in the womb their rights as legal people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You have to determine that a fetus is a legal person first if you want to use the Fourteenth that way.

Nobody of note has ever denied that gays and lesbians are legal persons.

Give JCL time.

Nice try. What do you get when a male human and a female human made in the image of God have relations? A baby human is what you get. Natural Law dictates that said child in the womb should be protected. Natural Law determined that the baby in the womb is a legal person.

Gays and lesbians are legal people. It's their personal choices of a most intimate manner that are contrary to that Natural Law that God set in place. If I denied gays and lesbians legal personhood it would be as bad as those who deny childern in the womb their rights as legal people.

Natural Law isn't where the Fourteenth Amendment purports to derive its legitimacy.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Blackstone would beg to differ.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sir William Blackstone, the British jurist who died two hundred and thirty-two years ago? Somehow I doubt he had strong opinions on the the Reconstruction Amendments or modern LGBT rights movements.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Sir William Blackstone, the British jurist who died two hundred and thirty-two years ago? Somehow I doubt he had strong opinions on the the Reconstruction Amendments or modern LGBT rights movements.

But George Washington and most if not ALL of the  founders actively opposed gays in military service. Who influance the Founders on law? Blackstone. Who did Blackstone get his influance regarding law and governance? The Bible.

Natural Law=Law of Nature=Law of Nature's God. Who is Nature's God? The Judeo-Christian God. The Reconstruction Amendments were a recomfirmation of these rights. LGBT rights would've been anathema to them. They were trying to see people as individuals not groups. We're they perfect? No that's why those amendments were set in place to protect racial minorities.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Can the marriages continue now or is there a stay?

Court leaves stay in place, pending further appeal, so same sex marriages do not resume in California.

Which makes sense, since if the Supreme Court does reverse, have people marry in the interim, only to have the marriages go poof would be far more problematic than a stay.

Agreed.  No matter how you feel on the issue, I think most people would agree that a stay is in the best interest.  When you're dealing with something as wide-reaching as this, you need to keep it in place (the same goes for a judge who finds the healthcare law unconsitutional).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sir William Blackstone, the British jurist who died two hundred and thirty-two years ago? Somehow I doubt he had strong opinions on the the Reconstruction Amendments or modern LGBT rights movements.

But George Washington and most if not ALL of the  founders actively opposed gays in military service. Who influance the Founders on law? Blackstone. Who did Blackstone get his influance regarding law and governance? The Bible.

I'm reasonably certain that most if not all of the founders actively opposed women's suffrage as well, and their splits on the issue of whether or not to manumit their slaves are well-documented.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not entirely certain that this paragraph advances a single coherent thought, more like a somewhat diced-up sequence of several, but you have a series of unassigned pronouns in there that I feel it's critical we assign before we decide whether or not the religious sensibilities that people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are held to have had are held to be applicable to secular law in the twenty-first. The historian John Boswell did some good work on the attitudes taken towards homosexuality by the Church in the Middle Ages and by people like Henry de Bracton, which I recommend you check out before trying to best me on appeal to relative age of putative authority.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can the marriages continue now or is there a stay?

Court leaves stay in place, pending further appeal, so same sex marriages do not resume in California.

Which makes sense, since if the Supreme Court does reverse, have people marry in the interim, only to have the marriages go poof would be far more problematic than a stay.

Agreed.  No matter how you feel on the issue, I think most people would agree that a stay is in the best interest.  When you're dealing with something as wide-reaching as this, you need to keep it in place (the same goes for a judge who finds the healthcare law unconsitutional).

I see no reason for a stay. There are 18,000 married gay couples in California from when gay marriage was legal who remain married.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Can the marriages continue now or is there a stay?

Court leaves stay in place, pending further appeal, so same sex marriages do not resume in California.

Which makes sense, since if the Supreme Court does reverse, have people marry in the interim, only to have the marriages go poof would be far more problematic than a stay.

Agreed.  No matter how you feel on the issue, I think most people would agree that a stay is in the best interest.  When you're dealing with something as wide-reaching as this, you need to keep it in place (the same goes for a judge who finds the healthcare law unconsitutional).

I see no reason for a stay. There are 18,000 married gay couples in California from when gay marriage was legal who remain married.

The marriage issue in the 2000s was a huge clusterfrak in California, ranging from marriages being annulled in some cases by the Supreme Court to behing upheld in others.  When it comes to the issue of gay marriage, if you're going to rule on it in the SCOTUS as being a Constitutional right, there's no harm in making homosexuals wait until the ruling is final; however, allowing for some marriages to go through only to have gay marriage struck down by the SCOTUS leads to confusion and imabalance in the law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Can the marriages continue now or is there a stay?

Court leaves stay in place, pending further appeal, so same sex marriages do not resume in California.

Which makes sense, since if the Supreme Court does reverse, have people marry in the interim, only to have the marriages go poof would be far more problematic than a stay.

Agreed.  No matter how you feel on the issue, I think most people would agree that a stay is in the best interest.  When you're dealing with something as wide-reaching as this, you need to keep it in place (the same goes for a judge who finds the healthcare law unconstitutional).

I see no reason for a stay. There are 18,000 married gay couples in California from when gay marriage was legal who remain married.

To bring in a totally unrelated issue to show the absurdity of that position, I suppose you support unrestricted construction of new Israeli settlements in the West Bank since there are already Israeli settlements there.

[milhouse24]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

I believe that you, sir or madam, are a heartless, cynical being whose ideas are not based in any sort of reality and should be banned.

Unfortunately for you the government and its employees have to follow the rule of law whether it is heartless or not.  There are millions of foreigners trying to enter the US borders every day and it may be heartless to deny all illegal immigrants entry in the US, our government has to follow the rule of law and that consists of drawing a line in the sand at some point and defining what is a valid marriage contract and relationship, and unvalidated platonic marriage.  It would be great if we were all mind-readers, but the government needs to determine if a relationship has been consummated in a sexual manner and this usually results in biological pregnancy.  Otherwise it is very easy to provide evidence for an annulment if a marriage has never been sexually consummated. 

[milhouse24]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

So people who are sterile or simply do not want to have kids should not be allowed to get married?

A straight couple may not be able to have kids because of health problems such as sterility, but that is not the government's fault.  Sometimes health problems are not found out until after consummation. 
The government's job is to provide a legal entity for a pregnant woman and the financial and physical protection of biological children so that they are not left on the streets as bastard children without a father to financially provide for the wife and children.  This is the framework that legal entity of marriage was created. 
Fraudulent marriages for financial gain occur when 2 people are not capable of consummating the marriage and have entered into a marriage agreement on dupliciteous motives for financial gain.  An example is when the elderly get married to a younger women, such as Anna Nicole Smith marrying a senior millionaire, and obtaining half or most of his property and bank accounts after his death.  His other children sued her for a variety of reasons. 

Now, not all marriages are about money, but it is the government's job to set up rules and regulations to protect citizens from other citizens, who make seek to use marriage as a scheme for personal gain rather than for pregnancy or true love. 

[milhouse24]

There are serious legal and bureaucratic issues faced with implementing gay marriage on a federal and national level.  Even if gay marriage was legalized nationally, it will take several years for gay marriage to be implemented among the many government programs that it effects.  Federal regulators are correct in analyzing how it effects state governments at the local level before deciding if it can be implemented on a federal level.  There are significant legal issues that differ between state and national laws, and while it may seem like happy times for gay marriage supporters, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for federal employees tasked with enforcing the rules and regulations of spousal agreements. 

Two questions:

How?
Why?

As I've said gay marriage fraud will increase when the better federal benefits get applied.  This will require more social workers and bureaucracies to regulate fraudulent gay marriage, yay big government.  For one thing, the widow pensions for social security are lucrative enticements.  Even for platonic same gender friends, I can see gold-diggers marrying old people just for their pensions.  Other government programs that don't want to implement gay marriage would be the military, which gives free housing to married couples.  Another program that doesn't want to implement gay marriage is homeland security and INS, which does not want to increase their budget to process the green cards, visas, and background checks for gay foreign spouses.  I'm sure there are more government programs affected by gay marriage, but that is why Obama will never support federal gay marriage because he knows that it will create increased budgetary demands that he does not have the resources to pay for.  There are also many catholic hospitals and community programs that will be affected by gay marriage demands, which will likely force them to shut down and close. 

The social and ideological reasons for having state-recognized marriage are not contingent on your bizarre interpretations of balance sheets, thank God, nor anybody else's. Marriage is not there for the budgetary convenience of the government.

That's why the government should play a minimum role in marriage and marriage benefits.  When people are given a lot of benefits by the government, like for marriage, then it becomes the government's fault to support every citizen.  So what becomes a legal partnership contract, also becomes a government contract that requires the government to pay out thousands of dollars to married couples for whatever benefits they wants.  This is big government at its worst. 

The most valuable and lucrative benefit from gay marriage will be a Green Card. 
But how will the government validate what gay marriage is real and what gay marriage is fraudulent?

If we define straight marriage as a relationship between a Man and a Woman that is consummated (the penis ejaculates into the vagina) and produces a biological pregnancy as one of the most common ways to prove a valid straight marriage, barring health problems from either person. 

Can we define gay marriage as merely a Platonic relationship between two men or two women that cannot physically be consummated and cannot physically produce a biological pregnancy?  How is the government and social workers going to decide what is a valid gay marriage and what is a fraudulent gay marriage? 

Therefore, it is my feeling that gay marriage may be possible at the state level, but it will not be valid at the federal level for a long time.  However, there may be instances where certain government programs recognize state-level gay marriages and subsidize married gay couples. 

None of those concerns are specific to same-sex marriage. If anything, the sham marriages are more likely without same-sex marriage because gays are more willing to give away the marriage boat for a friend. Why not if you're never going to be able to use marriage in a legitimate way. I used to work with a lesbian who legally married a Mexican friend to help him with his immigration situation. I doubt very much she would have been willing to do that if she had a chance at a "real" marraige.

As I've stated, the government is required to look for valid proof that a marriage is real, and not just a scheme to obtain government benefits like a green card or social security widow pensions. 
In a straight marriage, proof of sexual consummation is a biological pregnancy. 
In a gay marriage, I can definite it as being a platonic relationship that is incapable of consummation or biological pregnancy. 
Now if I define gay marriage as being a platonic relationship, this will also include 2 male roommates who just want to legally share property.  Now if 2 platonic males want to get married, then they can do so in a Private contract with their own lawyer.  The 2 platonic males do not need to involve the government in their legal affairs or personal lives; and the government is not at all interested in such a platonic relationship.  It would almost be an over-reach of government to try to control platonic relationships. 
In a straight marriage, the government has an interest in the welfare of the biological child, which was one of the reasons for creating a marriage entity, and probably the strongest reason for a government-supported marriage license.  For instance, the only reason the government will issue a green card to a foreign wife or husband is to allow for the foreigner to enter the United states to live with their biological children from that marriage. 
Marriage is by definition a sexual contract, so it is expected in healthy circumstances that the man would want to have intercourse with the woman.  If your lesbian friend married someone, then he would have the legal right to have intercourse with her.  It would be very difficult for her to prove that it was non-consensual rape. If he paid her for the green card marriage, then she would go to jail.

[SteveRogers]

As I've stated, the government is required to look for valid proof that a marriage is real, and not just a scheme to obtain government benefits like a green card or social security widow pensions. 
In a straight marriage, proof of sexual consummation is a biological pregnancy. 
In a gay marriage, I can definite it as being a platonic relationship that is incapable of consummation or biological pregnancy. 
Now if I define gay marriage as being a platonic relationship, this will also include 2 male roommates who just want to legally share property.  Now if 2 platonic males want to get married, then they can do so in a Private contract with their own lawyer.  The 2 platonic males do not need to involve the government in their legal affairs or personal lives; and the government is not at all interested in such a platonic relationship.  It would almost be an over-reach of government to try to control platonic relationships. 
In a straight marriage, the government has an interest in the welfare of the biological child, which was one of the reasons for creating a marriage entity, and probably the strongest reason for a government-supported marriage license.  For instance, the only reason the government will issue a green card to a foreign wife or husband is to allow for the foreigner to enter the United states to live with their biological children from that marriage. 
Marriage is by definition a sexual contract, so it is expected in healthy circumstances that the man would want to have intercourse with the woman.  If your lesbian friend married someone, then he would have the legal right to have intercourse with her.  It would be very difficult for her to prove that it was non-consensual rape. If he paid her for the green card marriage, then she would go to jail.

Look, I understand that you are arguing that the government should use pregnancy as the test of whether a marriage is legitimate or a sham, but the fact is that they don't. Plenty of straight couples do get married and don't end up having children for a variety of reasons, and under the laws that exist now, this is not grounds for the government to invalidate a marriage or deny benefits. Therefore nothing about your arguments related to sham marriages is unique to same-sex marriage. Everything you've said about the incentives for platonic friends to marry each other in order to receive government benefits applies just as much to straight couples. Again, everyone understands that you believe the government's only legitimate interest in granting marriage licenses is promoting the welfare of children, but the law isn't written that way. The federal government DOES in fact provide benefits to married couples REGARDLESS of whether they can be proven to have "consumated" the marriage as you put it. When it comes to marriage equality, the question is whether same-sex couples should have equal access to those benefits. If there is no "pregnancy test" for marriage licenses for straight couples, then there shouldn't be one for gay couples. This issue is distinct from the question of what the government benefits for marriage should consist of.

[milhouse24]

As I've stated, the government is required to look for valid proof that a marriage is real, and not just a scheme to obtain government benefits like a green card or social security widow pensions. 
In a straight marriage, proof of sexual consummation is a biological pregnancy. 
In a gay marriage, I can definite it as being a platonic relationship that is incapable of consummation or biological pregnancy. 
Now if I define gay marriage as being a platonic relationship, this will also include 2 male roommates who just want to legally share property.  Now if 2 platonic males want to get married, then they can do so in a Private contract with their own lawyer.  The 2 platonic males do not need to involve the government in their legal affairs or personal lives; and the government is not at all interested in such a platonic relationship.  It would almost be an over-reach of government to try to control platonic relationships. 
In a straight marriage, the government has an interest in the welfare of the biological child, which was one of the reasons for creating a marriage entity, and probably the strongest reason for a government-supported marriage license.  For instance, the only reason the government will issue a green card to a foreign wife or husband is to allow for the foreigner to enter the United states to live with their biological children from that marriage. 
Marriage is by definition a sexual contract, so it is expected in healthy circumstances that the man would want to have intercourse with the woman.  If your lesbian friend married someone, then he would have the legal right to have intercourse with her.  It would be very difficult for her to prove that it was non-consensual rape. If he paid her for the green card marriage, then she would go to jail.

Look, I understand that you are arguing that the government should use pregnancy as the test of whether a marriage is legitimate or a sham, but the fact is that they don't. Plenty of straight couples do get married and don't end up having children for a variety of reasons, and under the laws that exist now, this is not grounds for the government to invalidate a marriage or deny benefits. Therefore nothing about your arguments related to sham marriages is unique to same-sex marriage. Everything you've said about the incentives for platonic friends to marry each other in order to receive government benefits applies just as much to straight couples. Again, everyone understands that you believe the government's only legitimate interest in granting marriage licenses is promoting the welfare of children, but the law isn't written that way. The federal government DOES in fact provide benefits to married couples REGARDLESS of whether they can be proven to have "consumated" the marriage as you put it. When it comes to marriage equality, the question is whether same-sex couples should have equal access to those benefits. If there is no "pregnancy test" for marriage licenses for straight couples, then there shouldn't be one for gay couples. This issue is distinct from the question of what the government benefits for marriage should consist of.

Yes, the government can jail citizens who participate in green card fraud and immigration fraud.  Consummation that may or may not lead to pregnancy is a leading indicator of whether a marriage is valid or not. 
Most straight couples do at some point consummate the relationship at least once, with the penis entering the vagina, barring health problems from either person. 
Grounds for an annulment or divorce can be made if the marriage was never consummated, and not consummating a marriage is a very serious charge to make and is often called marriage fraud, and if such a situation were to occur, I'm sure the government will make sure those people who perpetuated the marriage fraud would be liable for any ill-gotten gains; for instance if a fraudulently married couple got a free military house if one was in active-duty. 
Marriage is a delicate legal entity, and just like in the case of Anna Nicole Smith who may or may not have consummated her relationship with her geriatric husband, she still was awarded a large percentage of her estate.  The government could have nullified the marriage if he was declared senile or not healthy enough to marry. 

I also believe that marriage is not a mandated right and that marriage benefits are not a right.  There are plenty of single people that would love to have more benefits from the government.  Everyone wants more benefits and the government to solve all their problems.  But gay couples can just as easily solve most of their problems with the private sector.  It is very easy to create a legal contract sharing all present and future property value.  It is legal to obtain a legal adoption of a non-biological child.  My point is that government licenses require rules and regulations and that defrauding the government is widespread including fraudulent marriages.  There may actually come a time when the government draws back and eliminates lucrative marriage benefits to discourage fraud. 

My belief is that if a marriage has always been platonic and unconsummated then it cannot be seen as a valid contract and should be annulled. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Consummation that may or may not lead to pregnancy is a leading indicator of whether a marriage is valid or not.

This sentence is absolutely disgusting.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Marriage is not a "delicate entity," and there are not marauding government teams going door to door to ensure that marriages are valid. The government does not actively investigate marriages to ensure that they are valid.

Further, there is literally no difference in research required for a ICE agent looking into a heterosexual marriage and one looking into a gay marriage. Literally none.

Marriage is by definition a sexual contract, so it is expected in healthy circumstances that the man would want to have intercourse with the woman.  If your lesbian friend married someone, then he would have the legal right to have intercourse with her.  It would be very difficult for her to prove that it was non-consensual rape. If he paid her for the green card marriage, then she would go to jail.

No, it is not. You are advocating in favor of marital rape, which I would like to point out is a crime in just about every civilized, Christian country. A wife is under NO obligation to have sex with her husband if she does not wish to, and if a husband forces himself on her anyway he can — and should — go to prison.

Your logic is vile and perverse.

The end.