The verdict is in! Gay marriage endangers the sacred union of straight couples!!!

Finally, there is proof that even west-coast liberals can’t deny. Just ignore the fact that it’s the federal government which doesn’t recognize your marriage license if you’re a straight couple which married during certain times this year in some of those places that decided to allow same-sex weddings.

NEW PALTZ, N.Y. – The Social Security Administration is rejecting marriage documents issued for heterosexual couples in four communities that performed weddings for gay couples earlier this year.

The agency is rejecting all marriage certificates issued in New Paltz, N.Y., after Feb. 27, when the town’s mayor began marrying gay couples, according to town officials.

Certificates issued during the brief periods when Asbury Park, N.J., Multnomah County, Ore., and Sandoval County, N.M., recognized gay marriages are also being rejected.

Susie Kilpatrick, 30, of New Paltz, said the local Social Security office told her that no marriage documents issued after Feb. 27 could be used to establish identity because of the gay marriages that took place there earlier this year. About 125 heterosexual couples have been married since then.

Kilpatrick said her marriage certificate was rejected when she went to get a new card earlier this month so she could take her husband’s name.

“What concerns me is that the certificate is the only way to prove that we’re married,” she told The New York Times for Sunday editions. “If something happens to us, or some other couple from New Paltz, we can’t prove we’re married. We would not be able to draw benefits.”

 

125 thoughts on “The verdict is in! Gay marriage endangers the sacred union of straight couples!!!

  1. Someone in the Social Security hierarchy better get their head out of their butt and quickly straighten this fiasco out.  Doesn’t the government have enough black marks against the way it is operating or are they now trying to punish even those who follow their laws?

    Come on leaders use your heads to do more than hold your ears apart or act like saviors out to cleanse   this country.

    Your job is not to spread the gospel but to administer the Social Security department so DO IT!

  2. It is astounding that the federal government can’t seem to navigate its’ own system in order buy proper equipment for our troops in the field, but it sure as hell can idenify every podunk dot of a town in the US that performs gay marriages and quickly act to nullify them via paperwork. Does anybody else think that our governments priorities are screwed up?

  3. After reading the entire article, I think it is clear the SSA is just covering its bum and is no more than a symptom of the whole sick system.

    It is astounding that the federal government can’t seem to navigate its’ own system in order buy proper equipment for our troops in the field, but it sure as hell can idenify every podunk dot of a town in the US that performs gay marriages and quickly act to nullify them via paperwork. Does anybody else think that our governments priorities are screwed up?

    I’m with you Rufus-Leroy. But you know, as Bumsfield said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish to have… {and I make the comments I make, not the comments my party wishes I would make about the unkowns I know I don’t know}”

    Okay, so I paraphrased some of it.  cool smirk (And I have the memories I have, not the memories this administration wishes I would forget)

  4. I’m so disgusted by the “morality” at the bottom of actions like this that I really think marriage is over-rated. Hell, how strong could it be if the behavior of strangers thousands of miles away can weaken it.

    I say, find a work-around to ensure a continuity of quality of life for the survivors and then…. In like Flynn and livin in sin.

    That may be naive but I refuse to have someone tell me my love for another is jeopardized by the behavior complete strangers.

  5. That may be naive but I refuse to have someone tell me my love for another is jeopardized by the behavior complete strangers.

    If jeopardizing your love is the standard, then there is no standard.  Polygamy of strangers doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Unknown older men w/ unknown 13 year old girls doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Cousins marrying cousings doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Fathers and daughters/sons doesn’t effect your love either.

    It is simply fallacious to set up the standard as it doesn’t effect my relationship. There is no cause and effect between gay marriage and anybody’s specific marriage.  There can’t be. So of course there will be no effect.

    The real question is what is the basis for the state to sanction marriage in the first instance? If there isn’t a basis for the state to sanction marriage then all of the above go.

    Regards,

  6. I presume the state feels marriage serves a purpose. But what that purpose is…. Economic? Biological?
    (Where’s Anna Nicole Smith when you need her?)

    I think by design the state sees marriage as primarily serving an economic purpose and uses that for its basis to sanction. But the right sees marriage as serving a biological purpose.

    If you feel the purpose of marriage is to express love then biology and economics don’t matter. The opinions/behavior of others don’t matter. When someone cries, “Slippery slope!” Just say, hey it already exists, it’s called materialism.

  7. The institution of marriage really is in big trouble. It’s seeing that it might have to change.
    REAL old cultural traditions like marriage haven’t had too much pressure in the last few centuries to accomodate much more than the division of costs, which used to be a Bride’s family’s obligation, then there was that dowery thang that vanished as well. I have no problem with “alternative lifestyles” as I prefer to call anything which is not “deemed” standard by society…But what I think we need here is to rethink what marriage is….

    Why take part in a process that forbids you ?Marriage needs to be rethought from the ground up, but with the Religious right, forgeit it…
    Bilogical, cultural or economic reasons…,
    who’s to choose right and wrong and write new law that is based on religious textes and traditions?
    Why can’t the State just keep the **** out of our bedrooms ??!!
    Peace out wink

  8. Actually, wives owning property is recent and wrenching change – far more significant than gay marriage can ever be. What are the odds that the same religious types argued against it?

  9. Yep, right on…
    But I had to read Consigliere’s post three times to understand where he stood…
    I mean, Anything one group does in society WILL affect the rest of the population….
    The plausable issue of what Gay marriages might do to our morales and values is actually NOT the issue….
    The issue is are we willing to treat Gays as equals with equal rights.
    I won’t deny that seeing two men kiss makes me feel a little strange, but denying their rights to live their lives for themselves and not their closets upsets me more….

  10. I won’t deny that seeing two men kiss makes me feel a little strange, but denying their rights to live their lives for themselves and not their closets upsets me more….

    On what grounds might the state have a right to define marriage?  Or should it just say oh, bang your daugher all you want cuz the we (the state) really need to stay out of your bedroom??????? And if you and your daughter believe that is true LOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVEEEEEE, then by God it must be.

    Regards,

  11. consi said: Or should it just say oh, bang your daugher all you want cuz the we (the state) really need to stay out of your bedroom???????

    Consi, if I’m not mistaken, the issue here is gay marriage between consenting adults, not banging daughters.  No one here is advocating that.  If you think permitting gay marriage will lead inexorably to incest and polygamy, you’d better demonstrate the connection.  Merely ranting

    And if you and your daughter believe that is true LOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVEEEEEE, then by God it must be

    is not very convincing- we’ve all heard this slippery slope argument before.

    We have to make a clear separation between laws governing marriage and laws governing sex.  What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of the State’s business.  Who should be allowed to marry is a trickier question, because of economic and genetic issues.  Leaving aside the economic stuff (I don’t know that much about what all they entail), there are well-known biological reasons to discourage close relatives from having children.  Hard to draw lines, but in the case of gay couples, no offspring, no problem.  Why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to marry?  Because it’s a sin, right?

  12. Incest already exists. It benefits society about as much as rape does (it usually is the result of rape).

    Besides, I don’t think there is a relation between homosexuality and incest… Doesn’t most, if not all incest occur heterosexually? People identify themselves as either heterosexual or homosexual… Are there groups that identify as incestuous?

    My point….. The issue is about sexual orientation, not practice. We are all born with an orientation. The state merely has to decide if both orientations are equal.

    Since sexual practice is a behavior, and since behavior can cause injury, then the state should have the right to regulate it. Rape should always be illegal. I’m not aware of a significant occurrence of consensual incest (or bestiality for that matter, baaaaaa).

    I don’t think one sexual orientation is more injurious than the other.

  13. That’s the deal here though as you can tell by Consigs response which is the typical Christian diatribe.
    In their religiously delusional mind brainwashed by years of Biblical hatred they see a gay person or relationship as no different than an animal or a rapist, there is no real distinction to them between the 2, Gay/Rapist/Bestiality etc. are no different, its not their fault really, they have been brainwashed into such hatred by an institution that has survived off of brutality, hatred, genocide, racism, death & War all under the guise of an all loving, all giving, all accepting dogma that in its infinite wisdom is really trying to help these infidels by torturing, killing, or using whatever manner to change or in their diseased mind “Save” these poor souls from an eternity of damnation & hellfire. Pat Adolph Robertson & Jerry Goering Falwell are a couple of prime examples of current hate mongers operating under the guise of Christian dogma. These lunatics are keeping their flock all nicely brainwashed with their doctrine of hate 7 days a week nationwide.

    Religion is by far the most divisive & damaging human behavior we as a species have inflicted on ourselves.
    The amount of irreversible damage Christianity alone is entirely responsible for in the past 2000 years is utterly disgusting, add in all the other “destructive religions” and its astronomical in scope.

  14. If jeopardizing your love is the standard, then there is no standard.  Polygamy of strangers doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Unknown older men w/ unknown 13 year old girls doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Cousins marrying cousings doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Fathers and daughters/sons doesn’t effect your love either.

    Meanwhile that very Bible they so feverishly cling to as their “absolute proof” of what they believe says this:

    Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12)

    Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20).

    Lot’s daughters with their father (Gen. 19:33);

    the son with his father’s concubines, as Reuben (Gen. 35:22), and Absalom (2 S. 16:22; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1);

    father-in-law with his daughter-in-law (Gen. 38:15ff; cf. Ezk. 22:11)

    of the brother with the sister or half-sister, as Amnon (2 S. 13:14);

    of the brother-in-law with the sister-in-law (Mt. 14:3);

    or with both a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (Lev. 20:14: 18:17).

    Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was the “mother of all living.

  15. I retract calling Consi a worthy enemy; he or she blew it with the posts above.

    In any case, we already took a ride down that slippery slope with Rick Brady et al. The gist of it is that person A shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car, because it might lead person B to eat raw meat on Mondays.

  16. C.U.D.D.L.E International: “Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws Through Education”

    That link provides you with a “U.S. Alphabetical Index of Marriage Statutes” … complete with a color-coded map… if you want to, you know, marry your cousin and need to know where it is legal to do so.

    To date, no one has married a cow or a daughter.

  17. I still don’t see the contradiction in nunya’s quotes, David also murdered an innocent man, that didn’t make murder ok, & the whole statement about Eve shows why those patriarchs married their relatives.

    Anyway, I think it’s just funny, because the issue is defying the government, not discrimination.  If gay marriage becomes the law, so be it, but not before the people of the state or nation say so.  Much like I don’t give a shit about Clinton’s sex life, but if he so much as forgets what he ate for breakfast 2 weeks ago (rather than simply pleading the 5th) under oath, I hope they toast his ass. I don’t know if they’re incompetent so much as unprepared because we know you can’t judge by name, & on the marriage liscence I’ve recently seen, there’s no distinction between bride & groom, you don’t have to check male or female, & we all know you can’t judge by 1st names.

  18. Why take part in a process that forbids you ?Marriage needs to be rethought from the ground up, but with the Religious right, forgeit it…
    Bilogical, cultural or economic reasons…,
    who’s to choose right and wrong and write new law that is based on religious textes and traditions?
    Why can’t the State just keep the **** out of our bedrooms ??!!

    Mike,
    That is exactly my thinking on the subject.
    The vocal and insistent gay community has fought vigorously to obtain the right to get married here, in Canada. The issue of gay marriage rights is or has been resolved; it is now legal in many of the provinces and one territory. I do not understand why they wanted to be a part of an institution (church practice) which wants no part of them.

    Instead, in my opinion, the gay community should have fought to re-define “marriage”. Term it a Civil Union if not performed in a church. Civil Union can also come with the full legal implications, obligations and responsibilities as an ordinary marriage, including divorce. How does the following work: 

    A MARRIAGE is the “union” of one man and one woman as performed with the approval and consent of a church. The government recognizes that the couple have a binding cultural and economic agreement. 

    A CIVIL UNION is the “union” of two people outside of a church as performed by an agent recognized by the government to perform such functions. The government recognizes that the couple have a binding cultural and economic agreement. 

    Personally speaking, these changes to the current system would mean that my wife and I, we have a Marriage certificate issued by the province of Alberta, would receive a Civil Union Certificate instead. And would we tell everyone that we are Civically Unionized as recognized in Alberta…, Hell NO, We would still tell everyone we were married. And that way gay civic unions become recognized as gay marriages, creeping slowly along to become part of the common vernacular. Just as my civil union would be. And also, I want a Gay Pride parade to make about as much sense as a Heterosexual Pride parade.

  19. If you think permitting gay marriage will lead inexorably to incest and polygamy, you’d better demonstrate the connection.

    I don’t believe that.  What I am saying is that on the standard that is being suggested, (doesn’t effect my relationship), there is a a compelling argument that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then the state should also allow polygamy. 

    It is difficult to see from the posts here on what grounds a state has a right to regulate marriages other than it may result in genetic defects.  Those folks can argue that they will abort the baby if there was a defect so no harm, no foul. 

    As far as myself, I believe that rearing children is not intregal to a marriage, but it marriage is the institution that we have set up for child rearing.  For that reason, I believe the state has the right to regulate marriage.  My beliefs about what is sinful and what should be legal or illegal are separate zilch. 

    Of the two, same sex and opposite sex marriages, I believe, that children are best served in a two parent father-mother home environment.  So, that is the marital institution that I believe should be sanctioned.

    Regards,

  20. What I am saying is that on the standard that is being suggested, (doesn’t effect my relationship), there is a a compelling argument that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then the state should also allow polygamy.

    Unless I’ve missed something, no one here has suggested that the reason for allowing gay marriage is because it doesn’t affect other relationships.  One might as well suggest allowing the murder of foreign heads of state for the same reason.

    No, this is just a common argument of the fundies turned upside down- they often claim that allowing gay marriage would endanger traditional marriage.

    The rationale for allowing gay marriage is civil rights, and the rationale for not allowing it is adherence to religious belief.

    I believe, that children are best served in a two parent father-mother home environment.

    Any support for this?  We had a post here a while back about kids raised by lesbian couples doing just fine.

  21. I believe, that children are best served in a two parent father-mother home environment.

    Come to think of it, children are best raised in an extended family. Failing that, they are best raised in a loving environment and the penis/vagina ration be damned.

  22. prickly pear, I agree,

    Gimme that Hetero Parade !

    Otherwise, I just deleted a novel I was writing here, just too much to comment on !!

    My kids will have 2 parents even if it kills me.
    They will learn sacrifice and responsibility,
    Stability and trust, openness and truth.
    They will learn that life goes beyond one’s own pleasure and rights…
    (Without the Church’s involvement)

    And when they ask about sue and her two moms, I’ll just tell them that some kids have two mommies or daddies but look, one does what dad does and the other one is more like mom right ? So it comes out the same. Or at least I hope it does…

    Hell, another comment like that and we’ll be discussing the sexual revolution
    again….

  23. And before someone slams me for that last comment, let me add that :

    You don’t have to own a Penis to act like a prick
    and
    You don’t have to own a Vigina to be on yer period

    Enough said !

    Merry Mass Consumerism !!

  24. Unless I’ve missed something, no one here has suggested that the reason for allowing gay marriage is because it doesn’t affect other relationships. 

    See MR’s first post.  It is implied. 

    One might as well suggest allowing the murder of foreign heads of state for the same reason.

    Good.  grin We can put this in the trash bin where it belongs then.

    The rationale for allowing gay marriage is civil rights,….

      If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay” gene.  If being gay is not encoded in the DNA, then it is a maladaptive coping mechanism. 

    ?  We had a post here a while back about kids raised by lesbian couples doing just fine.

    You are likely referencing a technical report from the AAP.  Contained in that report under the Summary section you will find the very first sentence states this:

    The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve.

      Hardly compelling. 

    What we do know is that at as young adults, a higher number of of those young adults are engaging in same sex relationships.  Golombok S, Tasker F, Murray C. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.1997; 38 :783 –791

    I pause to note that I’m advocating 2 parent male-female households.  However, there appears to be, at least from the surveys of the studies that I have done over the years a concerted effort to compare children raised in a homosexual household to that of a single heterosexual mother.  The reason is obvious. we know that children raised in single parent homes as oppossed to 2 parent homes have a tougher row to hoe, so the bar is lowered.  That is not the proper comparison, nor should such studies be cited as solid evidence. 

    Regards,

  25. What we do know is that at as young adults, a higher number of of those young adults are engaging in same sex relationships.

    You make this sound like it’s a bad thing.

  26. If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay

  27. I said:

    Unless I’ve missed something, no one here has suggested that the reason for allowing gay marriage is because it doesn’t affect other relationships.

    consi replied:

    See MR’s first post.  It is implied.

    MR’s first post:

    I’m so disgusted by the “morality

  28. Consi,

    If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay

  29. P.S.  The studies I referred to in my above post are described in the following articles:

    16.Hubel D. Wiesel T. (1963). Receptive fields of cells in striate cortex of very young, visually inexperienced kittens. Journal of Neurophysiology.  Vol. 26(6): pp. 994-1002

    17.Hubel D. Wiesel T. (1963). Single-cell responses in striate cortex of kittens deprived of vision in one eye. Journal of Neurophysiology.  Vol. 26(6): pp. 1002-1017.

  30. Most all of what is being quoted here is encompassed in the one site I listed BTW in one form or another.

    http://www.welcome-committee.org/booklet-5-keener.html

    Like I said, as a christian best to not bring up any form of alleged scientific basis for your religiously based prejudice as you are quite likely to have garnered your misinformation from some ridiculous “Creation Science” website which as we all know is completely full of shit and easily debunked 99.99% of the time. Best just to stick with magic wands & talking snakes and little invisible friends which is where religion is best suited.

  31. Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

    * 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

    It would seem to me, and I’m not making any claim to be a scientist, that if there was a genetic connection, that this figure should be in the high 90s.  Do you know what the proffered response to explain this is? (I’m interested in hearing it)

    You make this sound like it’s a bad thing.

      El, if it is maladaptive behavior then yes it would be.

    And your characterization of homosexuality as being “maladaptive

  32. Nunya:

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! 

    Are you even aware that the site that you linking is a site set up by Mennonites?

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Regards,

  33. yes I am, what Earthly difference does that make?

    The information itself has zero to do with them, its merely hosted by them.

    You always seem to pick some of the strangest things to have a gripe about.

  34. Of course I looked long and hard to find something that list this information with valid references (which are very solid & valid I might add) on a Christian/Religious host site so that you wouldn’t say, “that’s on a Atheist site” or whatever to infer that its bias and what do you do?

    Laugh about it being hosted on a religious site.

    LOL, that’s rich.

    Happy Winter Solstice

  35. It would seem to me, and I’m not making any claim to be a scientist, that if there was a genetic connection, that this figure should be in the high 90s.  Do you know what the proffered response to explain this is? (I’m interested in hearing it)

    Well considering the odds just went up what 500% from the less than 10% average?

    Id say that’s pretty damn significant.

  36. Nowiser, I hear you. This is the fifth or sixth rerun of the topic and so far there’s nothing new – other than a new euphemism, maladaptive behaviour, for which Consigliere should supply a formal definition.

    The basic argument of the opponents of gay marriage hasn’t changed:

    Homosexuality is bad
    Gay marriage is worse
    It hurts our religious sensibilities
    Therefore, it mustn’t be allowed

    What’s interesting, though, is that the opposition increasingly sounds like they all read the same debating guide…

    I supppose one way to address this is the Pop Tartian approach of settling one point at a time before moving on to the next. And even before that, there should be a glossary.

  37. Consigliere: The real question is what is the basis for the state to sanction marriage in the first instance? If there isn’t a basis for the state to sanction marriage then all of the above go.

    Let’s backtrack to there. We can ignore the reference to incestuous relationships, because it is fallacious in several ways at once and intended as a cheap appeal to emotion. What we cannot ignore is another real question – what is the definition of marriage used by Consigliere et al?

  38. Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
    * 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
    consi:  It would seem to me, and I’m not making any claim to be a scientist, that if there was a genetic connection, that this figure should be in the high 90s.  Do you know what the proffered response to explain this is? (I’m interested in hearing it)

    The proffered explanation, consi, is just as I said: that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality.  There are other factors as well: first, as Schweindi noted, biological but non-genetic factors:

    Higher numbers of older brothers translate into a higher probability of male homosexuality. The proposed theory is that when male fetal cells enter a mother’s circulation, her immune system recognizes them as foreign; this triggers antibodies, which enter the fetus’ brain and shift development away from a male-typical pathway (e.g. sexual attraction to females). The strength of this immunization increases with each male fetus, explaining why the chances of male homosexuality increase with each older brother.

    …and, of course, environmental factors.  As nunya pointed out, a genetic connection need not have a 90% correlation to be demonstrated- you must be thinking of eye color, or some other such rather simply inherited trait.

  39. consi:  That doesn’t stop me from telling him and his partner that I think that they have seriously psychological problems that are manifested by finding love in another man’s hairy ass.

    If they are happy, where’s the problem?  Take out “psychological” and put in “biblical”, and we’ve got a more accurate assessment of the “problem”.

    Oh, and elwed- you wanted a formal definition of “maladaptive” from consi.  Silly you- consi already provided one, in his/her response to you above.  Consi’s formal definition of “maladaptive” is: “a bad thing”.

  40. That doesn’t stop me from telling him and his partner that I think that they have seriously psychological problems that are manifested by finding love in another man’s hairy ass.

    So then you shouldn’t have a problem with us telling you that you have some serious psychological problems that are manifested by your belief in an invisible superfriend who gives you the “choice” of either worshiping him or spending all of eternity burning in a lake of fire. That’s easily as screwed up as what you’re complaining about.

  41. Zilch, I know. My basic point is these debates are just an exercise in futility, but perhaps the odd lurker or two would benefit if they are conducted more formally. To that end, definitions should be provided up front and the topic of the debate clearly articulated. Then again, one could also ask up front if the opposition to homosexual marriage has any argument other than “I don’t like gays” to cut through a lot of crap.

  42. My point stands, however.

    Shoot. I forgot what that point was.  Was it that that nobody knows what the word “behaviur” means?

    Merry Christmas El,  cheese

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.