Gay Marriage

Both Gay and Heterosexual Marriages Are Equally Stable

It's past time for gays and lesbians to be given the opportunity to wed. The evidence suggests that they will do no worse in marriage than their fellow heterosexual citizens have done.

|

Gay Married Couple
cornell.edu

Polls show that nearly 60 percent of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, which is now legal in 30 states. Even the Vatican, halfway through its two-week Synod on family life, issued a preliminary statement this week recognizing that gays and lesbians have "gifts and talents to offer the Christian community" and acknowledging the "mutual aid" same-sex couples provide one another.

Some gay men and lesbians want to get married as a public confirmation of their commitment to one another. There are also the legal advantages afforded married couples, such as inheritance tax benefits and hospital visitation rights. Now the Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld has identified another big advantage: relationship stability.

In a September study in the Journal of Marriage and Family, Rosenfeld uses time series data from the How Couples Meet and Stay Together survey (HCMST) to probe the longevity and breakup rates of America's marriages. The HCMST, which began in 2009, is a nationally representative survey of 3,009 couples, of which 471 are same-sex. Rosenfeld's paper reports the breakup rate of the couples surveyed annually through 2012.

Marriage in the study is conventionally defined by legal recognition for heterosexual couples. Since the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages before the Supreme Court's 2013 decision overturning Article 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Rosenfeld more broadly defines same-sex marriage and marriage-like arrangements as including state recognition, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Also included are same-sex couples who answered "yes" when asked if they were married "even if the government may not recognize your marriage."

As Rosenfeld notes, most prior studies of same-sex marital stability focused on European countries that had approved same-sex civil unions and marriages years earlier. A 2006 Swedish study, for example, found that gay male couples had a dissolution rates similar to that of heterosexual couples, whereas the breakup rate among lesbian couples was two to three times higher. Rosenfeld cites a paper that followed the marriage outcomes of couples in Vermont for three years after that state approved civil unions for same-sex couples. "Over 3 years, the same-sex couples without civil unions had the highest rate of break-up (9.3 percent), followed by same-sex couples with civil unions (3.8 percent) and heterosexual married couples (2.7 percent)," he reports. He adds that the Vermont study "is one important demonstration of the association between relationship formalization and couple stability for same-sex couples."

In the HCMST survey, there are 1,899 heterosexual married couples and 639 unmarried heterosexual couples, who had been together an average of 22.9 and 6 years, respectively. Same-sex married couples numbered 165 and unmarried 306, who had correspondingly been together an average of 16 and 11 years. There were 70 gay male married couples and 95 lesbian married couples.

StatesApproveGayMarriage
procon

Rosenfeld analyzed various factors that might have an impact on marriage longevity, including income, age, race, educational level, presence of children in the household, and parental approval of the matches. None of these considerations played a large role in accounting for couple longevity. Being married or unmarried was the crucial variable.

The breakup rate in Rosenfeld's study was determined by dividing the number of years that each cohort remained together by the number of breakups over the four year period of the survey. Among the HCMST participants, married and unmarried, the overall annual break-up rate was 4.9 percent for heterosexual couples and 8.3 percent for same-sex couples.

Not too surprisingly, there are big differences in relationship stability between married and unmarried heterosexual couples. The annual breakup rate among married different-sex couples was 1.5 percent. The relationships of unmarried different-sex couples dissolved at annual rate of 21.7 percent.

Married same-sex couples broke up at a rate of 2.6 percent per year, while 12.8 percent of unmarried same-sex couples went their separate ways annually. Interestingly, Rosenfeld notes that "lesbian couples have a significantly higher rate of break-up compared to heterosexual couples, while gay male couples have a break-up rate that is not distinguishable from the break-up rate of heterosexual couples." It is also noteworthy that unmarried same-sex couples broke up at about half the rate of unmarried different-sex couples. It is likely that part of the reason for this disparity is that unmarried same-sex couples had already been together almost twice as long their different-sex counterparts at beginning of the survey.

In the initial 2009 HCMST survey, 42 percent of the same sex couples living in states that recognized their relationships were married whereas only 28 percent were so in other states. This prompts Rosenfeld to observe, "Although the stability associated with marriage appears not to depend on state recognition of the marriage, state recognition of same-sex marriage opens a pathway to higher marriage rates among same-sex couples."

Rosenfeld concludes, "Despite the declining universality of marriage in the US for heterosexual couples, marriage is a uniquely important predictor of couple stability, for both heterosexual and for same-sex couples." Rosenfeld finds that marriage is not just associated with stability but causes it—that once couples are legally entangled, that serves as a significant barrier to exit.

It's way past time for gays and lesbians to be given the opportunity to wed. The evidence suggests that they will do no worse in marriage than their fellow heterosexual citizens have done. 

Disclosure: My wife and I are long-time supporters of Equality Virginia.

NEXT: Parents on Common Core: Stop Using Our Kids As Guinea Pigs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ronald Bailey Reports that U.S. Same-Sex Marriages Are as Stable as Different-Sex Marriages

    That bad, uh?

    1. I was about to quip something similar.

      1. You have to be one hell of an epic gay basher to wish that on them.

        1. Hey, they didn’t just wish it on themselves, they demanded it.

          1. So the Supremes granted same sex marriage in 2013.

            When did they grant same sex divorce ?

    2. OM: Once it’s widely legal maybe they’ll do even better.

      1. It’s possible, but I don’t see why. It seems to me that many of the most dedicated gay couples would have already gone to a state where it was legal if they wanted to get married.

      2. Low bar.

      3. We were kind of counting on them to save marriage.
        Goddam lazy queers.

      4. Re: Ron Bailey,

        OM: Once it’s widely legal maybe they’ll do even better.

        Indeed, the future may be brighter. We may find out that the secret of a lasting marriage is NOT Sunday Night Football and nudie bars but learning to do Crochet and table center pieces together.

        1. Nah. It’s blowjobs. And any couple who can perform two simultaneous blowjobs already has an edge.

          1. How can I trashcan that scene from my mind? I can’t find that damned icon….

      5. OM: Once it’s widely legal maybe they’ll do even better.

        A family member who is a lesbian postulated that lesbians would have a higher divorce rate. When I asked why, she said that lesbian woman were more likely to dive into a long term relationship before thinking their situation through:

        whereas the breakup rate among lesbian couples was two to three times higher.

        Q: What do you call two lesbians renting a U-Haul?

        A: The second date.

    3. Worse, since same sex marriage is NOT NATURAL. So you have two dysfunctional ppl acting dysfunctional vs a natural marriage having issues leading to divorce.

    4. If two men get married, how does Family Court decide who to screw over?

  2. Isn’t that a little premature? I mean, how long have legal gay marriages been around?

    1. More than 11 years in Massachusetts.

      1. Yes, well, that whole state is an outlier. I mean, the Kennedys? Kerry? Warren? Holy fuck.

        1. Hey, some of us live there. But some stereotypes are not wrong.

          1. And some drive around with “Masshole” bumper stickers on their cars – love that one.

  3. I would be surprised if the result was anything else, but isn’t it way, way too early to claim that there is data supporting this?

    What’s the longest any gay couple has been married, after all? Until we get a meaningful sample that is married more than, say, 7 years, I just don’t think you can say much about the relative stability of gay v straight marriages.

  4. Gay marriage isn’t legit till one of their ugly divorces ends up as a TV show.
    So, more to come…

  5. If I were in a snarky mood, I would say something like “at least SoLibs are willing to recognize the importance of marriage when it bolsters the SSM cause!”

    But I’m above that sort of thing.

    1. Apophasis is a helluva rhetorical device.

    2. Brutus and Cassius are honorable partners, eh?

      1. Nice, but if I may, I’d offer Touchstone’s explanation to Jacques about how he avoids duels as the Shakespeare reference for this one:

        “All these you may avoid but the lie direct, and you may avoid that, too, with an “if.” I knew when seven justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the parties were met themselves, one of them thought but of an “if,” as: “If you said so, then I said so.” And they shook hands and swore brothers. Your “if” is the only peacemaker: much virtue in “if.””

        As You Like It, Act 5, Scene 4.

        1. If I had wanted to be charitable to Eddie, that would have been my reference.

  6. Ronald Bailey Reports that U.S. Same-Sex Marriages Are as Stable as Different-Sex Marriages

    Holy Fucking Shit, Ron!

    Is water also wet?

    1. So wait, people act like people, even when they’re (gasp) homos?!? This…I…I need to process this, it’s too shocking…

      1. I have to quibble with your statement. Shouldn’t it read: “So wait, people act like barely civilized Monkey Boys. . .”? Not referring to just the homosexuals but all Monkey Boys.

        1. We can’t all act like your mom, ProL.

          1. Observe the characteristic flinging of feces by the Monkey Boy. It’s a dead giveaway.

            1. Where is he?!? I don’t see him!

              1. Followed by the telltale inability to perceive himself, similar to the vampire of lore. Now, we should observe the dancing.

      2. Who could’ve even dreamt those fags act just like real people!?

        1. Who says these marriages aren’t more apt to be “open”?

          Maybe that’s the 3rd variable for “stability”?

          1. who says they are? But it would be an interesting survey.

          2. I would guess that being of the same sex also makes it more likely that a couple will have similar sexual appetites which could also contribute to stability and happiness.

          3. Keep dreamin’ HM, keep the dream alive for all of us.

          4. I used to work for this party rental/staging company in Dallas and we put on a big shindig for a gay couple that must have been in their 60s. One cowboy came straight out of Brokeback Mtn and the other was a flashy interior decorator type.

            Apparently they had been living together in their big old country house for decades, but were big members of Dallas high society and put this party on every year. Deep in Red State Texas. I would consider them long term married without a license and I did hear they also did their own underground parties out of view of the society types.

      3. The family that parties all night to House Music together…. has fabulous brunches together.

        (finger snap)

        1. It’s the good brunches that hold any lasting relationship together, trust me. Damn, now I want some corned beef hash and eggs.

          1. You don’t know shit about brunch it’s all about the biscuits and gravy, jesus you sound like tony right now.

            1. I fucking love that big southern breakfast. Sausage gravy, biscuits, grits, various kinds of pork, eggs, etc.

              1. Never could get with the grits, of course people who love grits tell me it’s because I’ve never had my grits prepared correctly.

                1. It’s polenta. Just think of it that way.

            2. Biscuits and gravy? Corned beef hash? God you’re a bunch of fucking hicks.

              Give me smoked salmon and bloody marys or give me death.

              1. Very well. How would you like your death, Zebulon?

                1. With lots of smoked salmon and bloody marys.

                  1. Fair enough. Release the chefs of Special Forces!

        2. Hmm. I think all of the gay-married men I know are boring old dudes.

      4. Well not too long ago some Repu went to a “soul food” resturant.

        He announced that everyone used forks and knives just like everywhere else.

  7. public confirmation of their commitment to one another

    Public confirmation of such commitments usually is a smokescreen for the private lack of commitment. The strongest marriages I know of over the last 30 years have all been one-or-two witness types of ceremonies with no receptions and no gifts from friends and relatives.

    1. Yeah, the public commitment, blah, blah.

      The important thing is to have a party with an open bar.

      I don’t know if the big wedding is usually a smokescreen for problems, but it is certainly true that some people are more in love with the wedding than anything else.

      1. So, shallow, preening assholes don’t make good unto-death partners?

  8. Your lunch time derp: SOCONZ!

    The insurance companies have what is called a cafeteria plan, which enables us to pick and choose which plans we want. But what about Christianity? When did Christianity start offering a cafeteria plan?

    A writer wrote in a few days ago and said I am a Christian, vote for Wendy. Wendy as we well know, has had two abortions, believes in women’s rights to kill an unborn infant of more than 20 weeks, that’s five months in my book, and she also wants to bring same-sex marriage to Texas. Seems to me, the entire United States has become pro-gay.

    Back to the cafeteria plan. Ministers get on the pulpit and never speak the truth. Truth runs people with money away. With the new and enlightened “Once Saved, Always Saved,” aspect of religion, there is no longer any worry that Christ will send your soul to the netherworld. However, Our Lord made it clear on homosexuality, on divorce, on killings (even the unborn), yet these subjects are hardly brought up in churches anymore.

    When you pick and choose what you believe, you take religion to your level of belief, not to the belief of our Savior. When you vote your conscience as some churches say you should, what happens? I know someone who is gay and I want them to have the same happiness I do, so I vote for the party that favors homosexuality.

    1. “Ministers get on the pulpit and never speak the truth.”

      Oh, I agree, but for a somewhat different reason…

    2. A Google search didn’t work for me, is there a link?

    3. I thought church was for sinners.

      1. There’s a great saying in India – never trust someone who stands so close to God.

    4. It’s not really derp to tell people they should live up to the petty rules and regulations of their religion if they want to claim membership, even if you don’t like the petty rules and regulations. You’re not obligated to be a member of a religion with moral principles you don’t agree with.

      Considering libertarianism’s various purity tests (ironically enough, centering on the exact same issue), this almost seems like a “mote in your brother’s eye” kind of thing.

  9. Cont’d

    I know someone who has had an abortion and lives the same lifestyle to have more, but I want them to have the same lifestyle I do. You cannot have morals with an immoral society. Your vote should be with the majority. Only problem is, that in America, we vote our conscience and the judges are allowed to take our vote away.

    As long as Christians pick and choose what religious laws they will consort to, things will only get worse.

    Keep the cafeteria plan as you will, but remember, whether you believe in Christ or not, you will meet him and maybe, just maybe, He too will come to his senses and agree with your cafeteria plan.

    Soconz! Soconz! Soconz!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..1413571106

  10. Some gay men and lesbians want to get married as a public confirmation of their commitment to one another. There are also the legal advantages afforded married couples. . .

    The first part can be done, could have been done for decades now – longer than I’ve been alive.

    Its the *second* part that is driving this push.

    1. Let’s not forget the massive amount of conflation, reification, etc. with respect to the political institution as the institution itself.

    2. The first part can be done, could have been done for decades now

      And has been done. Gay marriage laws aren’t redefining marriage. It is catching up with reality.

    3. There are also the legal advantages afforded married couples. . .

      It is almost as if marriage recognition were a positive right!

  11. A 2006 Swedish study, for example, found that gay male couples had a dissolution rates similar to that of heterosexual couples, whereas the breakup rate among lesbian couples was two to three times higher.

    So The Washington Blade will report on that aspect, right? Right?

    1. But how salient are higher divorce rates among gays and lesbians for making public policy? Consider that a 2008 study in the journal Family Relations by Rice University sociologist Jenifer Bratter found that in the U.S. black-husband/white-wife marriages were twice as likely to end in divorce as white/white couples, and Asian-husband/white-wife couples were 59% more likely. Yet few would argue that interracial marriages should be prohibited because their children are at substantially greater risk of experiencing the social, psychological, and economic disadvantages stemming from a higher interracial divorce rate.

      1. So the strategy is deny, deny, deny…and when denial is no longer an option, cry RACISM!

        1. Ok, now THIS is Derpetologist-level derp, much better than that weaksauce posted above. But you forgot to indicate it’s a quote, people might think this excuse for logic was YOURS.

    2. I know a lesbian that predicted that years ago.

  12. Rosenfeld finds that marriage is not just associated with stability but causes it?that once couples are legally entangled, that serves as a significant barrier to exit.

    It’s way past time for gays and lesbians to be given the opportunity to wed.

    Right on Reason! That’s how I like my stability, state instigated, sanctioned, and enforced!

      1. Dr. Rosenpenis provides the very dry but literal definition of entrapment.

        Ron “Mr. Cocktails” Bailey is the one that says it’s way past time that my government be more inclusive in it’s institutionalization of it.

        1. Dr. Rosenrosen, I just need to get to the records.

    1. Rosenfeld finds that marriage is not just associated with stability but causes it?that once couples are legally entangled, that serves as a significant barrier to exit.

      I want HALF, EDDIE, HALF!

    1. My wife and I have been married 25. 15 years seems like a pretty messed up choice. Leave your spouse as soon as the kids start hitting puberty assuming you started a family right away? That’s cold.

      1. Mine left the moment my daughter was out of diapers. My ex-wife wasn’t going to be changing diapers on her own. No siree.

      2. No, you just need to have kids 5 years before you get married.

  13. Same-Sex Marriages Are as Stable as Different-Sex Marriages

    So, pretty crappy then.

  14. Why should the State be legitimizing anyone’s marriage period? What’s the fucking point? This whole system we had is a relic of the Jim Crow era to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. What I’m so baffled about both sides (and even libertarians) is this defending of an outdated system that was purposefully designed to prevent interracial marriages. Plus it’s just another part of the welfare state no different practically than Obamacare. #privatizemarriage

    1. I suggest giving the marriage privatization movement a few years before going full steam. Otherwise it might look like a sourpuss reaction to gays finally getting equal rights.

      1. As always, more concerned about appearances than justice…

        1. Justice is served by gays having the same rights as straights, regardless of how the institution is designed.

          1. …regardless of how the institution is designed.

            So the only issue that matters for justice is equality of persons based on sexual orientation?

            …See how you walked right into that?

            1. I don’t particularly consider the policy choice of private marriage vs. public marriage to be a matter of justice, but you’re welcome to.

              1. Given the particular “rights” and obligations bestowed by that legal institution, it most certainly is.

              2. “Tony|10.17.14 @ 7:01PM|#

                I don’t particularly consider the policy choice of private marriage vs. public marriage to be a matter of justice, but you’re welcome to.”

                That’s too bad. Because if you, and others, did, then gays would have been able to get married a long time ago.

                Tony how old were you when your father abandoned you/your family ?

                1. We weren’t able to call ourselves married? Why not? Nobody was going to arrest me for saying I was married to someone, or my sofa for that matter. The freedom to call yourself married despite not having legal recognition is a universal one. This concern is equal rights. Privatizing marriage is fringe utopian unicorn bullshit and has nothing to do with this issue.

          2. It would have been justice, for example, to treat heterosexuals the same as homosexuals circa 1950. Justice means equality.

            1. Not exclusively.

    2. Exactly. The government should be thrown out of the marriage business and all laws should ensure equal protection by making them marriage neutral; equal protection means that all Americans, regardless of sexual cohabitation practices, should be treated equally: the single, monogamous, polygynous, regardless of sexual orientation. Keep it private.

  15. I am stating an opinion here, MY opinion to be specific. I will not attempt to pass an opinion off as I fact. As I recall, when the issue of Gay and Lesbian Marriages became an issue many years ago, that most Americans probably were not all that much against it. Why? Mainly because Gay and Lesbian couples were living together anyway. All they wanted to do was to be able to get marriage licenses so they could have the same legal rights (inheritance etc. etc.) that “straight” couples enjoyed. In other words, the demand was “We want our civil and legal rights.

    Then came the opposition, which was (and remains) that most Christian churches were against Gay and Lesbian marriage. However, this came into the area of religious weddings, and as everyone knows you have to have a marriage license before a preacher/pastor/minister will marry you. This was, and remains the primary issue in this entire controversy. However, there are some Christian Churches/denominations that have no problem whatsoever with religious marriages, such as United Churches of Christ, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Even the Roman Catholic Church is undergoing a change with regard to Gays and Lesbian Marriages.

    1. As I recall, when the issue of Gay and Lesbian Marriages became an issue many years ago, that most Americans probably were not all that much against it.

      I am fairly confident that this, as stated, is wrong. What percentages do you have in mind here?

    2. “All they wanted to do was to be able to get marriage licenses so they could have the same legal rights (inheritance etc. etc.) that “straight” couples enjoyed. In other words, the demand was “We want our civil and legal rights”.” I think spousal medical coverage was a big driver, as the lifestyle was fairly unhealthy at the time. Public opinion was against gay marriage but Most people I know had an ambivalent attitude towards gays. “Just don’t push it.”

      1. So, when did they go from wanting equal legal rights to wanting equal approval and recognition as ‘married’ in the traditional sense with the same trappings and labels? Why is it surprising people would rebel against the upturning of centuries of culture and tradition? I realize libertarians aren’t big on tradition, but would rather culture and society be designed by some central authority, but still …

        1. It’s never surprising when people are small-minded idiots. Your bad mood because a minority achieves equal rights is not a significant state concern.

  16. If you actually believe that state sanction of marriage is a fundamental right it doesn’t really matter how stable they are, regardless of the genders of the participants. If gay couples were 50x more likely to divorce than straight couples would the editorial position of Reason on the issue change? No. Why should it?

  17. What are the statistics for “Holy Matrimony”?

  18. WOW! What a load of CRAP! Propaganda! And officially this site should change its name to irrational.com

    The real facts! http://www.familyresearchinst……-marriage/

    1. Hey, thanks for the 5 and a half decade old research that holds no relevance today. Seriously? a study done in the 1960’s? I didn’t know rotary phones could connect to the internet…

      Even the “new” studies are dated.

      But thanks for the selective propaganda from the other side of the aisle, Republican.

  19. But think of the children!

  20. In (sorta) related news, looks like another private business is going to be forced to do business in conflict with their stated refusal policy.

    This time, it’s a local GLBT group wanting a Christian T-shirt printer to make shirts for a gay pride parade. The company insists it isn’t discriminating against homosexuals (it has gay employees and does business with gay customers), but it is refusing to promote a “Gay Pride” message. Not good enough for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission (WTF is that level of gov’t for??)

    Wedding cakes, photos, t-shirts. “We demand you to be happy for us!”

    1. One day a Christian group will order some Tee shirts from a gay owned company that say “Gays Are Evil and Are Going To Hell”.

      I wonder what the response will be ?

      1. The thing is, there are hundreds of custom tee printers in the US, including online and probably some local to the group that wants the shirts. But the printer in this case is known for their Christian branch that prints for churches, camps, etc. What are the odds that the GLBT group picked them randomly vs choosing them to “make an example” and incidentally to sue for emotional distress (yes, it’s included in their claims).

        Waiting to see what happens when the GLBT groups confront a muslim baker, photographer, t-shirt printer, etc.

        Freedom, people. Let’s try it out.

  21. Isn’t it also past time to stop denying equal protection to single couples who sexually cohabit without a marriage license and are denied government benefits offered to those who have a state-issued marriage license? Isn’t it also past time to stop denying equal protection to those who practice polygamy and polyandry?

    Requiring the State to decide who may or may not sexually cohabit legally when it comes to consenting adults does seem to violate equal protection under the 5th and 14th Amendments — so far, the courts have added another group to those who qualify under all the laws tied to state sanctioned marriage, but have ignored other groups.

    Shouldn’t every adult be able to be married without involvement of the government and to provide equal protection under the law all the laws should be marriage-neutral based on being an individual with inalienable rights?

    So far the courts are simply perpetuating the denial of equal protection to all Americans regardless of sexual cohabitation status. End the madness.

    1. Anyone can choose to get married or not. The issue was that gay people didn’t have that choice in many jurisdictions. Married people are not a suspect class. They are people who had the freedom to choose to get married. You’re characterizing this as if people are born either married or single.

      1. No, he’s characterizing it correctly. The expansion of definition in who can enter a marriage contract went from males to females to include people who get erotic pleasure from each other. What reasonable justification. Is there for you to deny marriage “rights” to others fitting this description like polygamists? Is it cuz they’re icky?

  22. OK, I will ask this again. How does increasing government power over a religious rite improve human rights? This is not the first time the state has redefined marriage. The history of state marriage, beginning with King james I taking it away from the ecclesiastical courts and going through Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1789, on through the changing of the law to allow widowers to marry their dead wife’s sister, prohibition of interracial marriage, and now “Marriage Equality” is a long list of shortcomings of the state defining a religious rite. there should be no “legal” advantages or disadvantages to being married, any more than there is a legal advantage to taking communion.

  23. what Amber replied I can’t believe that anyone able to profit $8092 in four weeks on the internet . published here… W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  24. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  25. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  26. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  27. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  28. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  29. Ammy452, will ye not fer Chrissakes, PWEASE fuck off and DIE, already?!?!?!?

  30. DOMA not enforced — Obama and Holder — leave it limbo. Voters wills overturned by unelected federal officials. Businesses forced to provide services to customers’ requests which are in conflict with their religious faith. And now in Idaho two Christian pastors will be forced to marry two gays whether it is against their religion or not.

    Nothing against gays. But this is a heck of a foundation for a marriage.

  31. When will libertarians realize they are being played for fools on this issue? Proponents of gay marriage have had nearly two decades to frame this issue as one where the state should get out of licensing marriage (and thus also all the legislated stuff re that) and revert back to the common law rules for judges to resolve disputes easily (with maybe a ‘spouse’ govt form to easily handle things like hospital/medical decisions and such).

    And yet after all sorts of time to frame this issue properly – as ‘it’s none of the government’s business’ – it is very transparent that actual proponents of gay marriage have ZERO interest in that – and virtually all of them actually oppose that approach. Instead, they ALL frame the issue as a civil right – where government must mandate the rules and ensure equal opportunity and continue to get even further involved in personal relationships.

    There is no issue on which I have more contempt for libertarians than on their complete stupidity and cluelessness on this.

  32. I remain unconvinced that a homosexual union is the moral, social & functional interchangeable equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

    Judge Paul Kelly writes that marriage between a man and woman is much more than merely an emotional union between consenting adults and benefits society through strengthening families and communities. He previously imposing marriage redefinition ‘turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.’ Judge Kelly is exactly right. Voters have a right to preserve natural marriage as the best means of providing what every child deserves: a mom and dad

    Curious historical fact – every ancient culture : Persia, Babylon, Assyria, Greece, Rome… was removed from the “world stage” within a generation after accepting homosexuality as normative in the culture. America has now hitched itself to that same bandwagon and we assume we will escape *any* ill social effects?

    Will Americans be proud of their “embracing/promoting homosexuality” when we look like the Soviet athletes after the USSR fell and they represented a country that no longer existed?

    With at least 5,000 years of Western civilization normalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage, and the American experiment with redefining marriage a mere 10 years old, it certainly seems like I’m on the right side of history ? the long one ? the one authenticated by every society that produced human flourishing.

  33. So what? Marriage is either just a public affirmation of affection or something more. The something more is the possibility of children, the next generation, the continuation of the human race. Can’t do that with gay relationships. Not saying gay relationships are not valid, just saying that they just don’t matter.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.