DOMA does not block gays from receiving federal marriage benefits

Bloomberg News posted Greg Stohr’s article titled “Marriage Cases Thrust Supreme Court Into Gay-Rights Fight.”

"The justices are scheduled to confer privately on Nov. 30 on 10 pending appeals, including clashes over the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks gays from receiving federal marriage benefits, and a California ballot measure that outlawed same-sex nuptials there in 2008. The high court may say as early as that afternoon which cases it will consider."  [Emphasis added.]

Here’s the problem:  DOMA does not block gays from receiving federal marriage benefits.

It’s easy to see why same sex marriage advocates frame the debate as a gay rights issue.  Gays are a minority and Americans don’t want to discriminate against minorities.

But marriage licenses don’t ask about sexual orientation. It’s all about who is the bride and who is the groom.  Every person with same sex attraction has a gender, and is therefore free to marry someone with a complementary gender in all 50 states.  This may sound trivial, but it is a necessary distinction.  There is a crucial difference between sexual orientation and gender.

It would be more accurate to call Bloomberg’s article:  “Marriage Cases Thrust Supreme Court Into Gender-Rights Fight.”

Marriage is not just about sexual orientation; it is about uniting two genders and providing both a mother and a father for children.

In contrast, same sex marriage is inherently sexist.  It either discriminates against women or men.  It intentionally deprives children of either a mother or a father.  It is either anti-male or anti-female.  Call it anti-gender, for short.

Which is more important for marriage, for developing children, and for society?  To keep marriage gender-integrated?  Or to advance anti-gender marriage?

Will the Supreme Court uphold gender diversity in each  marriage?  Or decide that adults have the right to discriminate against gender in marriage?

Keep marriage pro-gender.  Because gender matters to everyone, including those with same sex attraction.

Will Supreme Court choose anti-gender marriage cases?

Which is more important in a marriage?  Gender diversity or homosexuality?  The Supreme Court decides this week whether to hear cases involving same sex marriage.

Huffington Post:

The high court has scheduled a closed-door conference for Friday to review Golinski's [same sex marriage} case and four others that also seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. 

The purpose of the meeting is to decide which, if any, to put on the court's schedule for arguments next year. 

The outcome carries economic and social consequences for gay, lesbian and bisexual couples, who now are unable to access Social Security survivor benefits, file joint income taxes, inherit a deceased spouse's pension or obtain family health insurance.

People with same sex attraction currently have the legal right to marry in all 50 states provided they marry someone with a complementary gender.  At issue is whether they have the right to redefine marriage and remove the gender-integrated requirement.  Does the government have good reason to give financial incentives to adults who purposely intend to deprive children of either a mother or a father?  Is gender discrimination and segregation socially equivalent to gender integration in a marriage?

Will the Supreme Court decide to keep marriage pro-gender?  Or will they decide legalizing anti-gender marriage is the only way to be fair to people with same sex attraction?

Support same sex marriage or else 'Gay men will marry your girlfriends'

To promote same sex marriage, gays threaten to "marry the crap out of" straight guys' girlfriends.

From College Humor:

Straight guys respond to threat: 'Gay men will marry your girlfriends' (Video)

To promote same-sex marriage, gays at College Humor threatened to marry straight guys' girlfriends.

Scotch Tape gives the response from straight guys: 

Why men don't want to marry: Because 'women aren’t women anymore'

Suzanne Venker at Fox News claims the reason so many guys eschew marriage is that women have changed: 

"Women aren’t women anymore. 

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically. 

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs. 

Now the men have nowhere to go. 

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes."

Dartmouth atheists plan 'full-out romp' against Mother Theresa

Good news for Mother Theresa haters:  an event just for you!

Oliver Darcy at Campus Reform.org reports:

An atheist group at Dartmouth College is planning an event aimed at skewering the reputation of the late Mother Teresa.

The Atheists Humanists Agnostics (AHA) club sent out a campus-wide e-mail announcing the program on Tuesday and promising a “full-out romp against why one of the most beloved people of the century, Mother Teresa, is as Hitchens put it… ‘a lying, thieving Albanian dwarf.’”
  

The e-mail says the group plans to screen an anti-Mother Teresa film, discuss Hitchens’ book, Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, and question how the public has been “conned into thinking this woman [Teresa] was good.”

The e-mail states Teresa, who is on her way to sainthood in the Catholic church, “was not a friend of the poor,” but “was a friend of poverty.”

 

When reporter Dan Wooding flew to India to interview Mother Theresa, she told him, “The spiritual poverty of the Western World is much greater than the physical poverty of our people.”  While this Catholic nun dedicated her life to caring for the poorest of the poor, Ivy League atheists spend their time complaining about her.

Mother Theresa:

“You, in the West, have millions of people who suffer such terrible loneliness and emptiness. They feel unloved and unwanted. These people are not hungry in the physical sense, but they are in another way. They know they need something more than money, yet they don't know what it is."

“What they are missing, really, is a living relationship with God.”

Will legalizing 'virtual' child porn reduce pedophilia urges?

Who else thinks this is a horrible idea?

Daily Mail:

Two sex therapists have sparked outrage in the Netherlands by calling for 'virtual' child porn to be legalised to relieve the urges of paedophiles. 

Amsterdam hospital sexologists Rik van Lunsen and Erik van Beek claim allowing perverts to view drawings or computer-generated images of children would 'regulate their desires'. 

The Netherlands outlawed all sexual representation of children in 2002 as technology made imaginary images too realistic.

'If you make virtual child pornography under strict government control with a label explaining that no child was abused, you can give paedophiles a way of regulating their sexual urges.'


Mr van Lunsen added:'We don't make enough of a distinction in public debate between 'healthy' paedophiles, people who are not paedosexually active, and delinquent paedosexuals. 

'We're not responsible for our thoughts or our fantasies, we're only responsible for one thing - our actions.'
But the comments from the pair who run the sexology department at Amsterdam's Univeristy Hospital have sparked shock on Dutch Internet forums. 

Psychotherapist Jules Mulder of the prestigious De Waag clinic said:'The proposal isn't really pertinent and for some people it will certainly increase the likelihood of going through with sexual abuse. 

'It would also be very difficult to cover all tastes. Some want photos of naked children, others want children having sex while someone else wants an eight-year-old boy with dark hair and a certain look in his eyes.
'It's not possible to satisfy these different desires with a bit of virtual child pornography.'