Gays

[indago]

Journalist Julie Turkewitz wrote for The New York Times 21 February 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradition reigns here on the Navajo reservation, where the words of elders are treated as gospel and many people still live or pray in circular dwellings called hogans. The national debate over gay marriage, however, is prompting some Navajos to re-examine a 2005 tribal law called the Dine Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex unions on the reservation.

...“It’s not for us,” Otto Tso, a Navajo legislator and medicine man from the western edge of the reservation, said of gay marriage. “We have to look at our culture, our society, where we come from, talk to our elders.” ...At a beauty salon in Chinle, Ariz., about 100 miles from Mr. Nelson’s home in Tohatchi, Jaye BTode, 55, dipped a client’s long tresses into the wash basin as she considered the issue. ...“That’s not for us,” Ms. BTode said of gay marriage. “No, no, no, no.”

Her client, Julie Begaye, 54, lifted her head out of the sink, shaking her wet locks. “That’s not our tradition,” she said. “If you want to do that, get off the reservation and do that somewhere else.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Journalist Julie Turkewitz wrote for The New York Times 21 February 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradition reigns here on the Navajo reservation, where the words of elders are treated as gospel and many people still live or pray in circular dwellings called hogans. The national debate over gay marriage, however, is prompting some Navajos to re-examine a 2005 tribal law called the Dine Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex unions on the reservation.

...“It’s not for us,” Otto Tso, a Navajo legislator and medicine man from the western edge of the reservation, said of gay marriage. “We have to look at our culture, our society, where we come from, talk to our elders.” ...At a beauty salon in Chinle, Ariz., about 100 miles from Mr. Nelson’s home in Tohatchi, Jaye BTode, 55, dipped a client’s long tresses into the wash basin as she considered the issue. ...“That’s not for us,” Ms. BTode said of gay marriage. “No, no, no, no.”

Her client, Julie Begaye, 54, lifted her head out of the sink, shaking her wet locks. “That’s not our tradition,” she said. “If you want to do that, get off the reservation and do that somewhere else.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article

Her client, Julie Begaye, 54, lifted her head out of the sink, shaking her wet locks. “That’s not our tradition,” she said. “If you want to do that, get off the reservation and do that somewhere else.”

^^^^^^^ Exactly what should have been told to the Obama long ago!!!!!!
Get your sorry , treasonous ass out!!!!!! --Tyr

[fj1200]

^He should ignore the Constitution? I thought you got all ticked off when he did that.
... and what exactly has BO done?

[indago]

Journalist David Crary wrote for The Associated Press 25 February 2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A unique federally funded study offers a detailed look at the lives of gay, lesbian and transgender youth in New York City who cope with homelessness and poverty by engaging in what the researchers call "survival sex." In extensive interviews conducted over three years by the Urban Institute, 283 young people spoke about experiencing family rejection, establishing support networks with groups of their peers, and learning how to subsist on earnings from sexual encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article


They all ought to get married together and suck up government benefits. After all...

IT'S ABOUT THE BENNIES

[indago]

From CNN 4 March 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------
...Carson also said he believes the issue of allowing or restricting same-sex marriage should be decided on the state level, rather than by federal courts — even as the Supreme Court prepares to take up a case this spring that could legalize gay marriage nationwide.
----------------------------------------------------------

article

The various States have their varying customs: some exclude homosexuals from marriage, and some do not. The Supreme Court has been asked to declare a OneSizeFitsAll solution to the problem. With that same premise, there are various and sundry religions practiced within the several States, some at odds with each other. The Supremes could issue forth a declaration that a OneSizeFitsAll solution would be that there will be a National Religion. Then, they would have to choose one. Maybe Catholicism! In all of the States, Catholicism would be the one National Religion, and then laws would have to be enacted to enforce this, with Pains'nPenalties attached.

[fj1200]

^That was nonsensical. Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government has nothing to do with religion.

[indago]

^That was nonsensical.

What was "nonsensical" about it?

[fj1200]

What was "nonsensical" about it?

A shorter list would be what was sensical. Religion has nothing to do with the issue. In a perfect world the states could determine their own rules but once the Federal government steps in then it's a completely different story.

[Gunny]

The main problem with democracy is that it allows for tyranny by majority.

The main problem with the progressive left is the belief in tyranny of the minority.

[indago]

^That was nonsensical. Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government has nothing to do with religion.

Realising that you are infected with RCD and ADD (that would be Reading Comprehension Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder), I will explain the posting for you, and other LoInfo folks:

You see, the subject of the posting isn't religion, or homosexuals. It is the OneSizeFitsAll solution. Homosexual marriage, and religion were used as analogies for the purpose of inflicting the OneSizeFitsAll solution upon the States. It was pointed out that with the Supreme Court being asked to arrive at a solution to the controversies concerning homosexuals marrying, and not being recognized in some of the States, they will arrive at a OneSizeFitsAll solution for all of the States, whether they like it or not.

And, furthering this analogy, and using the various religions that are practised in the States, being:

• snake handling religions

• those who won't call a doctor for their children when they are sick

• those religions that practise polygamy

• those that use hallucinogens (peyote, etc.)

• Islamic religion that uses Sharia Law

• Catholicism

etc.

There may come a time when there is such a conflict between these religions within the States that the Supreme Court will be asked to arrive at a solution to the problem, and they inflict the OneSizeFitsAll solution upon the States, being just one religion practised, and Catholicism was the choice noted.

[fj1200]

You're overcompensating for lacking an intelligent argument.

You see, the subject of the posting isn't religion, or homosexuals. It is the OneSizeFitsAll solution. Homosexual marriage, and religion were used as analogies for the purpose of inflicting the OneSizeFitsAll solution upon the States. It was pointed out that with the Supreme Court being asked to arrive at a solution to the controversies concerning homosexuals marrying, and not being recognized in some of the States, they will arrive at a OneSizeFitsAll solution for all of the States, whether they like it or not.

There may come a time when there is such a conflict between these religions within the States that the Supreme Court will be asked to arrive at a solution to the problem, and they inflict the OneSizeFitsAll solution upon the States, being just one religion practised, and Catholicism was the choice noted.

That is still nonsensical. The Federal Government came up with a "one size" solution when it started granting benefits and privileges based on the word marriage. It is now an equal protection issue in that those benefits and privileges are not available to all. If you don't want gays to get the "bennies" that you are entitled to then you should start advocating for eliminating those "bennies" and remove the word marriage from the Federal Register.

[indago]

^That was nonsensical. Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government has nothing to do with religion.

"Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government"

1 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1 - RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
Sec. 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

(Added Pub. L. 104–199, §3(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419.)

page

[fj1200]

^And? It seems I was correct, it has nothing to do with religion. It also seems you're a little late:

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FEDERAL LAW DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN MAN, WOMAN

RULING 5-4, THE Supreme Court today struck down a federal law that recognized lawful marriages as only between a woman and a man.
The dispute before the court revolved around the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. Among other things, the law defines, for federal purposes, marriage as the union of a man and woman. That denies a host of federal benefits — including Social Security survivors’ benefits, insurance benefits for government employees and estate taxes — to same-sex couples, even those granted the right to marry in another country or any of the 12 states and the District of Columbia that recognize such nuptials.
Two federal appeals courts had declared DOMA unconstitutional. The case before the justices concerns Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a New York couple who married in Toronto after 40 years together. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor inherited her estate — and a $400,000 tax bill, which she would not have had to pay if the federal government recognized the pair’s marriage.

[indago]

^And? It seems I was correct, it has nothing to do with religion. It also seems you're a little late:

So, then, contrary to what you wrote, being: "Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government", there is no "Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government".

And, your noting: "it has nothing to do with religion", has nothing to do with the point made, and is irrelevant.



.

[fj1200]

So, then, contrary to what you wrote, being: "Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government", there is no "Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government".

And, your noting: "it has nothing to do with religion", has nothing to do with the point made, and is irrelevant.

Not exactly. Religion has nothing to do with marriage at the Federal or any level as much as you'd like to say otherwise. But correct, marriage is apparently no longer defined at the Federal level but is still referenced often. Marriage should not be used to determine benefits and privileges at the Federal level IMO.