DOMA hearing was today

So, I'm certainly not SCOTUSblog, but it would appear, based on today's discussions, one of two things will happen:

1. The Supreme Court will find DOMA's federal definition of marriage as an inherently gendered institution unconstitutional, although the rational they will choose is up for debate. Either it will be violating the equal protection clause (by making same-sex marriages "skim milk" while opposite sex marriages receive full federal benefits), or it will be found to be infringing severely on state's rights to regulate marriage as they see fit. Regardless, DOMA will be thrown out, and legal same-sex marriages at the state level will also be recognized at the federal level. 
2. The Supreme Court will decide that BLAG had no right to defend the case, and that the refusal of the Obama Administration and the Attorney General to defend the case because they themselves find it unconstitutional (all the while enforcing DOMA as per the responsibilities of the Executive Branch and the Justice Dept. to uphold the laws of the land) raises serious constitutional questions in and of itself. Of course, should they decide this, another similar case will arise within a few years time. That Administration may choose to defend DOMA, but as the arguments of the merits of the case would be roughly the same, it seems silly to retry it when a decision can be made now (a choice that would save the federal government money in the long run). 

Those are the choices, folks. Today's discussion made it pretty clear that this Supreme Court is unlikely to uphold DOMA. What is worrisome is that they may elect not to rule on the case because they feel BLAG has no special interest in the case, nor have they the potential to incur any harm, unlike the Administration would, had they not sided with the plaintiff. If this happens, no judicial progress can be made on this issue for another 4 years. Legislative options are all that is left. And I'm not sure the House and Senate have enough support on the left to pass any laws invalidating DOMA. 

Prop 8 hearing today!!!

This is all I have to say.

How gay marriage supports the sanctity of marriage

It is not the gay rights movement that is delegitimizing marriage; on the contrary, Edie Windsor has made one of the most eloquent statements on the importance and significance of a legal union:

"The fact is, marriage is this magic thing. Marriage ... symbolizes commitment and love like nothing else in the world. And it's known all over the world. I mean, wherever you go, if you're married, that means something to people and it meant a difference in feeling the next day."- Edie Windsor

Many in the LGBT community value marriage enough to want the right to marry. Why villianize them, religious right? 

Some argue gay marriage will delegitamize marriage because gays and lesbians cannot procreate. If the point of marriage is to make children legitimate, however, marriage would be pointless for the sterile or those using reliable contraception. Clearly couples not capable or not intending on having children are encouraged to wed. Therefore, childbearing/rearing is not the primary function of marriage, at least in the modern day. As such, gay marriage is no threat to straight marriage. 

Other arguments against gay marriage also cannot stand. You cannot discriminate against a group of people and violate their rights simply because you find their behavior repulsive, so attacks on the unnaturalness of two men or two women having sexual relations is simply not an adequate reason to deny two consenting, loving adults the right to marry. 

In the same line of reasoning, arguments that "children need two, opposite sexed parents" is a ridiculous argument to deny the rights of the gay community. Pediatricians in the AMA have made statements that marriage of their gay or lesbian parents is actually good for the children involved. Studies have shown children raised by gay and lesbian couples are as well-adjusted as the children of straight couples. What's more, if having two opposite sexed parents for every child were the real concern, don't you think those with political or economic power would be far more concerned with single moms and dads?

You know what is really "demeaning" marriage, religious right? Educating women. Think about it. Most modern Western women get an education and can provide for themselves. They leave their parent's homes in their late teens and early twenties, and are not economically forced to immediately enter a husband's home. Women learn how to navigate life without a man to provide for her. Women can choose to not have children by using contraceptives. Some even choose to have children out-of-wedlock, and learn they don't need a man to be a good mom. As such, women loose their virginity in their late teens but don't marry until their mid to late twenties. 

Economic and reproductive freedoms are not the only reason why women are waiting almost 10 years after beginning sexual activity to marry. In the in-between time, many young women are intentionally living with a significant other to determine whether or not a potential marriage would be happy, get this, because they do not want to disrespect the institution of marriage or harm any children they may have with their partner by later seeking a divorce. Some pro-gay straight women, aware of the struggles and heartaches of their gay and lesbian friends, are delaying marriage until their brothers and sisters can also legally marry. Others still, because of the pain of their parents' divorce they experienced as a child (or the pain of watching a religious parent not leave an abusive relationship out of respect for the institution), have decided to never marry because they have lost faith in it. Still others of these women, using an understanding of statistics and the research savvy they gained in post-secondary education, have read the studies produced by the US Federal Government that show women who marry sooner are more likely to divorce than those who marry later, and that committed couples who live together before marriage are no more likely to divorce than couples who marry without having lived together. 

So, religious right wing America, you want to stop the cohabitation, divorce, and gay marriage that you claim is destroying marriage? The solution is simple: stop letting women be strong and independent, and you'll get the narrow-minded, misogynist view of marriage back. 

Click here for more commentary on sex and religion in the US.

Don't worry... I'm not getting married

Thanks to the sage advice of Redditors, and a long talk with my boyfriend, I am not getting married or even engaged to satisfy my parents. :) Now, I need help on a new question: How the heck do I tell my conservative, evangelical parents I plan to live in sin?

Looking for feedback

Internet friends. I have questions for you. Please answer in the comments section below.

• What are some non-religious reasons for getting married?
• What are some non-religious reasons for getting married before living together, or for living together and then getting married?
• If you are married, when did you marry and why? Did you live together first? Why or why not?
• Would you advocate living together as a permanent state, living together before getting married, or getting married without having lived together first? Why (with non-religious reasons please)?

My parents want me to get married in six weeks, which is completely nuts. There's no need to rush: I'm not pregnant, and I don't have a close family member who is dying or about to be deployed internationally. I'm not even engaged!!! 

How does one plan a wedding in that amount of time? It would be crazy to plan a wedding even for this summer, although I suppose not entirely out of the question. Furthermore, weddings, even small daytime weddings, cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. Where would that money be coming from?

My ex-boyfriend is a dad?!?!

Weirdest thing ever.

The first guy I ever loved, the first guy I ever snuck around with, is not only married, but as of last night, is the father of a little girl.

And I am going to get a PhD.

Somehow a PhD seems like less of a big deal. Somehow I feel like he's an adult and I'm not. Somehow I feel like something is wrong with me for not even wanting what he has.

A boy you once adored, to whom you bared your heart and soul, with whom you thought you would marry and have babies and grow old, to see him as a man now living all his dreams (which were once your shared dreams) with someone else and to not be jealous whatsoever (more confused and perhaps a little sad) is bizarre.

Update: 

I got on Facebook again literally as soon as I posted the above, and another guy I had a thing for way-back-when and his wife also just had a baby, a son.

My night just got even weirder.

My accomplishment for the week was not vomiting all over the shuttle driver in Marina Del Rey. My highlight  of the week was seeing the Chicago skyline in a blizzard. They became parents.

Crazy.