Yeah, funny, I put up the summary, which is longer than the actual federal code. so, here goes.

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the " Defense of Marriage Act" .

SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 115 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AFTER SECTION 1738B THE FOLLOWING:

"1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING:

"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.".

blahfuckityblahfuckityblah

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.


we needs a whine emoticon.

HEY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON ME HERE.

You are saying something exists that has not been directly observed nor has its effects been observed in any controlled setting for scientific evaluation.

I dont have to prove shit. If you tell me something is here, I dont have to prove its not, youre making the assertion, not me.

Go take a damn scientific method study class.

got any photos?

Naah, how can the burden of proof be on her? You are the fella with the initial assertion. Neither one of you can prove your assertion. And neither one of you should be so worried about it.

thanks for the copy-paste job, i could have googled it if you wanted me to read the whole damn act.

i don't even know where to begin, you give me nothing to dispute... so i'll just assume you're getting all pissy about this line (i can't believe i actually have to take both sides here, you REALLY suck at debating)i can just see a queen now getting all huffy about it and the thought makes me chuckle, because you're COMPLETELY missing the point of this bill.

nowhere in this bill does it outlaw same-sex marriages... it passes that decision on to the states. all this bill does is define at the federal level what 'marriage' means when previously written in federal law... because a marriage affects things like income taxes, etc... which have been designed in the past to help a family unit that is reproducing.

'marriage' as currently defined in federal law provides the basis for this unit, which remains the strongest and most important social unit. a wealth of social science research and data attest to this commonsense fact. it has nothing to do with sexuality.

in conclusion, this ACT (it's not even a bill yet, come on) does not infringe on your rights to have gay buttsex or even 'get married.' all it does is prevent you from having the benefits of a reproducing social unit.


so what other infringements on your rights are these evil christians committing?

I'm not all that worried about it. I just find it really sad that Jeremy just can't let people believe. Again, I don't give a shit what you think Jeremy, I KNOW that what I believe is right.

End of story.

we already had this debate cheesedick.

everything that exists is in your head. you can't prove anything when it comes to philosophy.

now stfu.

I disagree with the definition of a married couple as a reproducing social unit. Are you living in the 1800's? The majority of children are either born to unmarried parents or have parents that get a divorce. I would say that at this point the 'reproducing social unit' is often the mother. I personally think anyone raising a child should get some kind of break. What if a gay couple raises a child?

Other infringements? How about long-term partners not being recognized as a household, and having little to no say in what happens after their partner dies? Oh yeah, and I can't join the military as an open queer. I love the Bill Hicks quote on that tho: 'Anyone....dumb enough...to want to join the military...should be let in'.

this kind of attitude fucking pisses me off. If you knew anything about religion and christianity you could pose a decent argument. However, its obvious that you dont. So, I'll make my point short.

Yes, God probably doesnt care about the outcome of the highschool football game. Thats not what they are praying for. They are praying for the ability to do their best, they are praying for the safety of others and their own.

If you ever paid attention instead of turning your back and giving christians the finger you might know that.

I dont believe that using a PA system to pray at a football game is forcing religion on anyone. First of all....like so many have stated before, if you dont want to pray dont. Now you might say, well I dont want to listen to it. Well, I didnt want to listen to the various ways and types of birthcontrol and different ways of abortion and the people who said it was their right to force me to listen to the horrid ways that people kill unborn children while I was in highschool.....but I HAD to listen to it.

You didn't want to hear about birth control in high school?

Are you asexual?

Anything reguarding sex in high school and I was like oooh! SEX! YAY!

UNFUNFUNFUFNFUNF!

Birth control, and abortion are not religion. There is a definition of seperation of church and state in the constitution, there is not anything in the constitution about abortion or religion. That is why it is not approproate. Period.

Jeez, where to start:

I do not consider myself a fag. I find some women attractive and some guys. Doesn't mean I want to bone either one. Just consider me undecided. At any rate, I do not know you, and I am sorry you feel I am judging you because I am not. You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is just that, take it with a grain of salt.

I have no problems with people believing in God. I think if you looked back at my comments you will not find me saying anything about being against God.

I have no clue where you are getting me calling you weak, or dumb, or anything else. I am wondering if you read my post. Your whole, I am for Jesus so Fuck off thing, smacks of you being a








Troll

If you would like to actually read my posts and answer intelligently then cool. Otherwise, I will bow out of this conversation, and let you battle it out with the militant gay dude. With any luck, you both with kill each other off.

im going to bust out the blues brothers car with the megaphone on it and play carebears music at 150db.

then complain to me about "just dont listen to it"

fuckface.

You're such a ....for lack of a better word...jerk.


GET OVER IT, BAKER. NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

obvious?????

no shit. some people are right and others are wrong.

I love it when christians get annoyed at both birth control AND abortion! Cuz ya know what? If more peeps would use birth control, there would be a HELL of a lot less abortions performed. But, either way, there are too many people on this planet, and people fuck and women get pregnant.

bwaaaahahah awesome

ooooh.....damn thats a good one.

My point (which you obiously didnt get):

I was made to go to these "classes" sit through hours of this horrid stuff. You are not MADE to sit there through all the religous stuff.....fuckface.

Lol, and I guess the birthcontrol thing I stated before wasnt a good example. No I'm not asexual :).

Oh and Jeremy, dont be mad just cuz I got the girl....

lol...LOVE that one...

excuse me while i laugh uncontrollably all the way to hell

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

funniest thing on tbn EVAR!!!!!!1

I think what needs to start happening is instead of just saying Christians, you say "most" or "many" or something. That way you're not including all of them.

I use birth control. I have my opinions on abortion. And I have several gay friends.

No point. That is all.

you just pulled that out of your ass, i guarantee you that's not true.i don't think we have that technology yet... but that would end up being one fucked up kid, just ask any child psychologist. you sure as hell can't have my wife's kid... but i'm sure if you could find a heterosexual couple to give their kid to you the government would let you do it. you may hear some words from the christians about it, but they wouldn't be infringing on your rights.about the household - are you really that pissed off that you can't both fill out one income tax form? come on... i'm sure it won't be long before they change that anyway.
as for when their partner dies... that has to do with the family of the partner, not "the evil christians." that situation happens with any couple, gay or not.
and news flash: you can join the military now being openly gay... if you really want to.


alright... so far the "evil christians" have "infringed on your rights" because you can't fill out a joint tax form yet.

you're retarded.

the funniest part is the number of times youve asked her if she and I were still together......like you had some kind of chance :)

excuse me while i laugh uncontrollably all the way to hell

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

just because i want to nail her has no indication of some sort of 'jealousy'

i want to nail pretty much ALL chicks. dont think youre special bud.