History Tropers / Arucia

* GenkiGirl - When I get into the Cloudcuckoolander state of mind. Some people can induce it just by being around me. Since I now see three of these people pretty much every day, I've been much more energetic.
* GrammarNazi - I don't exactly flip out, but I will get rather irritated if I cannot correct it. I don't mind it so much if it is an oral mistake or a stream-of-consciousness writing, though. Or, you know, writing meant to emulate speech or thought patterns. If I ever make a grammatical error, please point it out to me so that I may fix it.

* HeroesLoveDogs - Well, assuming that I am the hero of my own life. Anyway, I adore dogs. I have a Springer Spaniel named Oliver who is not lacking in affection.

* NiceHat - I currently own over 30, not including my winter hats or my Chinese rice hat. I am rather well known for having "fabulous hats" at my school despite hats being against the dress code. I really want a top hat, though. And a fez. Fezzes are cool.

* TheQuietOne - Yeah. My (extremely talkative) friends always complain about it for some reason.

Molly G. Piehl
610 W. Harrison Street
Maumee, OH 43537
419.893.5543
gaenor42@yahoo.com
Educational and Career Focus:
To pursue advanced degrees in cognitive science and linguistics.

Education:
Maumee High School, Maumee, OH
GPA: 4.57/5.0 scale; Class Rank: top ten

Educational Focus:
AP Chemistry II, AP Physics, AP Calculus, AP Spanish IV, AP English, AP social studies classes, Art, Choir, Psychology
Other Education:
Exploring Human Behavior class, Earlham Explore-a-College Program, 2011
Psychology class, Carleton College Summer Quantitative Reasoning Institute, 2012
Voice and Piano Lessons, Bethany Riegsecker, 2010 to present
Awards:
First place, Toledo Bar Association essay contest 2010
Power of the Pen; Regional Qualifier, 2009

Extracurricular Activities:
Maumee High School
• Drama Club: Member, four years
• Theatrical Productions: Actress, eight productions
• Quiz Bowl: Member, four years
Sports Car Club of America
• Autocross: G Stock Racer, two years

Volunteer Experience:
Volunteer, The Friendly Center, Toledo, OH
2009 – present, various work physically setting up events, making advertising material, cleaning, and miscellaneous
Volunteer, Earlham Explore-A-College Program, Richmond, IN
2011 – Cleaning duties

Personal Skills:
Computer Skills
• Able to use Macs and PCs
• Computer literate in Word, Excel, Office, and Powerpoint as well as TextEdit, Garageband, iPhoto, iMovie, and GoogleDocs
• Able to use E-mail and browse internet using Safari, Firefox, Google Chrome, Netscape, and Internet Explorer
Dependability
• Attend most or all practices
• Give notice well in advance if conflicts do occur
• Complete quality work
• Able to accept challenges

Writing/English Skills
• Patient when doing detailed work
• Experienced in writing essays, research papers, viewpoint papers, poems, and short stories

Communication Skills
• Able to ask informed questions
• Maintenance of confidentiality
• Respect for others
• Adaptation of data presentation for the clearest, most efficient conveyance of information
• Capable of unsupervised work completion

Team Building

* TheKlutz - I'm not as bad as most examples, but I do tend to accidentally knock over things and trip over chars. I also have a poor memory regarding things that are not academic, trivial, or fanatic in nature. Lists are wonderful. The first person who made a list should be praised.

* CloudCuckooLander - If I am hyper, in a good mood (and not taking my ADD pill), talking to a really good friend (on the rare occasion I have something to say), or talking to someone that I don't think I'll ever see again, I become this. My general thought process tends to generate raised eyebrows and "Where did that come from?" even when I do not meet any of those conditions.

* InsufferableGenius - While I am not qualified to be a genius, I am intelligent and sometimes come across as condescending

* PaleSkinnedBrunette - Although I'm not as ghostly or eerie as many other examples

My name is Emily, although I will respond to Ceri, Hey You, Em, and Lia.

* TvTropesWillEnhanceYourLife
* TvTropesWillRuinYourLife

Ignore this next part. I am doing a project, can't access my email, and forgot my USB stick. I need to do a small information transfer.
* http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/AcademicJournalsDetailsPage/AcademicJournalsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Journals&prodId=SUIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CA245952259&mode=view
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

Same-Sex Marriage
Current Issues, 2010
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVYW&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900150&mode=view
Same-sex marriage permits couples of the same gender to enter legally-recognized marriages and provides them with the same legal rights as couples in heterosexual marriages. Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. In the United States as of 2010, same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Vermont as well as in the District of Columbia.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the institution of marriage should apply only to unions between one man and one woman. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, they say, undermines the institution of marriage itself. Some who object to same-sex marriage support the idea of civil unions, rather than full marriage, for same-sex couples. But advocates say that such unions are not fully equivalent to marriage and deprive same-sex couples of equal rights.
Legislative History
In the United States, marriage laws are enacted by the individual states, not by the federal government. Yet the federal government has intervened where it has determined that constitutional rights have been violated. The argument that same-sex couples should have the right to marry can be traced to the civil rights movement, which supported efforts to repeal state miscegenation laws that forbade interracial marriages. In 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights." Loving v. Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in 1967, ended race discrimination in marriage and also affirmed: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." These decisions paved the way for same-sex couples to demand equal marriage rights. Beginning in the early 1970s, individual gay and lesbian couples applied for marriage licenses in various states, but these efforts did not succeed. Though some couples sued, the lawsuits were also rejected.
The tide began to turn in 1993, when three same-sex couples in Hawaii sued the state for marriage licenses. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state was required to demonstrate sufficient reason for denying the licenses, or stop discriminating. In a 1996 trial decision, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that there is no good reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite this clear ruling to end discrimination in marriage, Hawaii amended its constitution to block same-sex marriages.
These developments fueled growing activism for same-sex marriage rights. In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to the same rights as couples in heterosexual marriages, but the state legislature enacted civil unions, rather than full marriage, for same-sex couples. In 2001, the same year that the Netherlands became the first country to give same-sex couples full marriage rights, seven same-sex couples in Massachusetts who had been denied marriage licenses sued the state. Their case was bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws and stated that the "moral disapproval" of voters or government is not a valid basis for discrimination in marriage. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution mandates equality in marriage for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Three months later the court specified that civil unions did not meet this requirement, and on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Ups and Downs
Events in California illustrate the deep divisions between supporters and opponents of gay marriage, and between government and voters. In 2004 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than 2,000 were granted, and these couples married. But the California Supreme Court later deemed these licenses invalid. In 2005 the California legislature became the first in the United States to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. The case went to the California Supreme Court, which ruled in 2008 that "limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," and that marriage must be made equally available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. At the same time, however, a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, was launched to deny same-sex marriage rights. On June 16, 2008, California began allowing same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses. But on November 4 of that year, Proposition 8 passed, again banning same-sex marriage.
A similar pattern was seen in Maine, where Governor John Baldacci in 2009 signed a freedom to marry bill, which had strong support from both branches of the state legislature. Opponents, however, with strong support from national organizations, launched a referendum campaign to ban same-sex marriage. It was put on the ballot that November and passed by a narrow margin. As in California, voters overturned legislative action.
Defense of Marriage Act
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law specifies that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. It also states that the federal government defines marriage as "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 wife." However, DOMA does not require individual states to adopt this definition, nor does it ban states from allowing same-sex marriages.
Despite President Obama's strong support for gay rights, his administration filed a motion in June 2009 to dismiss a case in California seeking to overturn DOMA. The motion acknowledged that DOMA permits each state to decide the legal status of same-sex marriage and said that married same-sex couples were not entitled to constitutional acknowledgement of their married status. Yet in August, the White House issued a statement on another DOMA defense brief, saying that the brief "makes clear … that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."
Federal Marriage Amendment
Since 2002 opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It has been introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2008 but has failed to gain enough support to pass. Those in favor of FMA argue that the federal government must intervene to stop same-sex marriage because, where it is allowed, it has been the result of advocate judges imposing their views against the will of voters. This, say proponents of FMA, amounts to an abuse of judicial power. Proponents also argue that same-sex marriage threatens the federally recognized special status of opposite-sex marriages and that a constitutional amendment must be enacted to protect this status and prevent other types of marriages.
FMA opponents, however, say that the amendment would violate state rights to regulate marriage laws. They also argue that it would restrict civil rights and violate the right to privacy. Some religious groups also oppose FMA, arguing that it is not the government's role to define marriage and that the amendment would violate freedom of religion.
Civil Unions
Many politicians, wishing to support same-sex rights without alienating advocates of traditional marriage, have supported civil unions for same-sex couples. These unions, the details of which vary by state, confer various rights and benefits, but not the full rights that marriage bestows. Civil-union rights may include legal protections relating to wills and property, probate, adoption, spousal abuse, access to state employee group insurance, workers' compensation benefits, family leave benefits, and power of attorney.
But these rights, say advocates, offer only a fraction of the benefits that the U.S. government gives to couples who are legally married. These include the right to make medical decisions on behalf of the spouse or to take sick leave to care for a partner, and the right to visit a partner in the hospital or in prison. Legally married couples also enjoy a wider range of protections in matters of divorce, child custody, automatic inheritance, domestic violence, joint bankruptcy, and receipt of Social Security benefits, and also receive tax advantages not given to unmarried couples.
According to a Pew Research Center report in 2009, some 53 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but 57 percent support civil unions for same-sex couples. In 1996, when he was running for the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama stated: "I favor legalized same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." But during his presidential campaign in 2008 Obama shifted his views, stating his support for civil unions. Some analysts accused the candidate of pandering to the large African American demographic that opposes same-sex marriage. According to the White House Web site, the president "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."
Religion
Much of the debate on same-sex marriage stems from religious teachings on marriage and on homosexuality. Islam, for example, officially prohibits same-sex marriage, whereas Reform Judaism has long permitted same-sex couples to celebrate their commitment. The Roman Catholic church opposes same-sex marriage, and American bishops, stating that "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman," strongly support the FMA.
The United Church of Christ, in 2005, became the first major Christian denomination to give official support to same-sex marriage. In 2009 the Episcopal Church voted not to block same-sex marriages in dioceses that chose to perform them. More-fundamentalist churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention, however, have actively opposed same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Unitarian Universalist churches unequivocally support same-sex marriage.
Attitudes among churchgoers often differ considerably from those of church officials. Data published by the Christian Century in 2009, for example, show that some 45 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage, whereas only 43 percent oppose it. And among white mainline Protestant congregations, support is almost 40 percent and opposition is 50 percent. In black Protestant congregations, however, 25 percent support same-sex marriage and 66 percent oppose it.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning.
Source Citation:
"Same-Sex Marriage." Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2011.
Document URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVYW&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900150&mode=view&userGroupName=maum27661&jsid=78aa4241ce4a35854c955797614b4e41
Gale Document Number: GALE|PC3021900150


The United States Does Not Need a Federal Marriage Amendment
Homosexuality, 2009

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010143281&mode=view

Charles Krauthammer, "A Ban We Don't (Yet) Need," The Washington Post, June 9, 2006, p. A23. Copyright © 2006 The Washington Post. Reproduced by permission of the author.

"The Constitution was never intended to set social policy."

In the following viewpoint, Charles Krauthammer argues that congressional debate over a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is a waste of energy. While he opposes the state of Massachusetts's decision to recognize same-sex marriages, he contends that laws already in place will slow the spread of such recognition. He concludes that when judicial activists overstep their bounds, as they have done in recognizing same-sex couples, the solution is to remove them, not to change the Constitution, and to elect presidents who will appoint right-thinking Supreme Court justices. Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and commentator whose work regularly appears in national publications.

On Wednesday [June 7, 2006] the Senate fell eighteen votes short of the two-thirds majority that would have been required to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The mainstream media joined Sen. Edward Kennedy in calling the entire debate a distraction from the nation's business and a wedge with which to divide Americans.
Since the main business of Congress is to devise ever more ingenious ways (earmarked and non-earmarked) to waste taxpayers' money, any distraction from the main business is welcome. As for dividing Americans, who came up with the idea of radically altering the most ancient of all social institutions in the first place? Until the past few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with "divisiveness" those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.
And that partisanship and dimwittedness obscured the rather interesting substance of the recent Senate debate. It revolved around the two possible grounds for the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment: federalism and popular sovereignty.
Federalism
When one state, such as Massachusetts, adopts gay marriage, the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution might reasonably be applied to require other states to recognize such marriages, and thus, essentially force it upon the rest of the nation. Federalism, however, is meant to allow states the autonomy of social experimentation (as with Oregon's legalization of assisted suicide) from which other states can learn. It is not intended to force other states to follow.
But it turns out that the Massachusetts experiment has not been forced on other states. No courts have required other states to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts. Gay activists have not pushed it, wisely calculating that it would lead to a huge backlash. Moreover, Congress's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) explicitly prevents the state-to-state export of gay marriage.
Should DOMA be overturned, that would justify a constitutional amendment to prevent one state from imposing its will on the other forty-nine. But it has not been overturned. And under the current Supreme Court, it is unlikely to be. The Marriage Protection Amendment is therefore superfluous.
Popular Sovereignty
That leaves justification No. 2:
Popular Sovereignty. Gay marriage is a legitimate social issue to be decided democratically. The problem is that imperial judges are legislating their personal preferences, striking down popular will and calling it constitutional law.
Most notoriously, in Massachusetts a total of four judges out of seven decided that the time had come for gay marriage. More recently, in Georgia and Nebraska, judges have overturned (state) constitutional amendments banning gay marriage that had passed with more than 70 percent of the vote.
This is a rerun of the abortion fiasco: judicial fiat that decades later leaves the issue roilingly unsettled and divisive. This is no way to set social policy in a democracy. So why not have a federal constitutional amendment and smite the arrogant solons of Massachusetts, Nebraska and Georgia, and those yet to come, all at once?
Because it is an odd solution for a popular-sovereignty problem to take the gay-marriage issue completely out of the hands of the people. Once the constitutional amendment is passed, should the current ethos about gay marriage change, no people in any state could ever permit gay marriage.

Judicial Overreaching

The amendment actually ends up defeating the principle it sets out to uphold. The solution to judicial overreaching is to change the judiciary, not to undo every act of judicial arrogance with a policy-specific constitutional amendment. Where does it end? Yesterday it was school busing and abortion. Today it is flag burning and gay marriage.
It won't end until the Constitution becomes pockmarked with endless policy amendments. The Constitution was never intended to set social policy. Its purpose is to (a) establish the rules of governance and (b) secure for the individual citizen rights against the power of the state. It defaces the Constitution to turn it into a super-legislative policy document.
In the short run, judicial arrogance is to be fought democratically with the means still available. Rewording and repassing the constitutional amendment in Georgia, for example. Appealing the Nebraska decision right up to the Supreme Court, which, given its current composition, is extremely likely to terminate with prejudice this outrageous example of judicial interposition.
In the longer run, it means having Supreme Courts that routinely strike down such judicial imperialism. And that means electing presidents who nominate [conservative Supreme Court Justices] John Roberts and Sam Alito rather than [liberal Justices] Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
True, this does nothing about today's judicial usurpation in Massachusetts. But that is the problem of its good citizens. If they want to, they have the power to amend their own state constitution. In the meantime, Massachusetts remains quarantined by DOMA.
Therefore, there is no need (yet) to disfigure the U.S. Constitution with a policy amendment.

Further Readings
Books
0. Robert AldrichGay Life and Culture: A World History. New York: Universe, 2006.
0. Donald AltschillerHate Crimes: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005.
0. Eric AndersonIn the Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005.
0. Mary Virginia Lee Badgett and Jeff FrankSexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2007.
0. Harry M. Benshoff and Sean GriffinQueer Images: A History of Gay and Lesbian Film in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.
0. David BlankenhornThe Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books, 2007.
0. Kate BurnsAt Issue: Gay and Lesbian Families. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
0. Sean CahillSame-Sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004.
0. Michael Cart and Christine JenkinsThe Heart Has Its Reasons: Young Adult Literature with Gay/Lesbian/Queer Content, 1969-2004. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2006.
0. David CarterStonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution. New York: St. Martin's, 2004.
0. Jimmy CarterOur Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005.
0. George ChaunceyWhy Marriage? The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2004.
0. Donald H. ClarkLoving Someone Gay. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts, 2005.
0. Carol Curoe and Robert CuroeAre There Closets in Heaven?: A Catholic Father and Lesbian Daughter Share Their Story. Minneapolis, MN: Syren, 2007.
0. Joe DallasWhen Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They're Gay. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004.
0. Joe DallasThe Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007.
0. Melissa M. DeckmanSchool Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
0. James DobsonMarriage under Fire: Why We Must Win this Battle. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004.
0. Alan DownsThe Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing Up Gay in a Straight Man's World. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2006.
0. Robert L. FatiggiWhat the Church Teaches about Sex: God's Plan for Happiness. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2008.
0. Ronnie W. FloydThe Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press, 2004.
0. Nancy GardenHear Us Out!: Lesbian and Gay Stories of Struggle, Progress and Hope, 1950 to the Present. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
0. Abigail GarnerFamilies Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is. New York: HarperCollins, 2004.
0. Evan GerstmannSame-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
0. Mark D. JordanBlessing Same-Sex Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
0. Lisa KeenOut Law: What GLBT Youth Should Know about Their Legal Rights. Boston, MA: Beacon, 2007.
0. Michael A. KingStumbling Toward a Genuine Conversation on Homosexuality. Telford, PA: Cascadia, 2007.
0. Sylvain LarocqueGay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: James Lorimer, 2006.
0. Arthur LipkinBeyond Diversity Day: A Q&A on Gay and Lesbian Issues in Schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004.
0. Erwin W. LutzerThe Truth about Same-Sex Marriage: Six Things You Need to Know about What's Really at Stake. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2004.
0. Francis MacNuttCan Homosexuality Be Healed? Ada, MI: Chosen, 2006.
0. Meredith Maran and Angela Watrous50 Ways to Support Lesbian and Gay Equality: The Complete Guide to Supporting Family, Friends, Neighbors—or Yourself. Maui, HI: Inner Ocean, 2005.
0. Eric MarcusIs It a Choice? San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005
0. Eric MarcusWhat if Someone I Know Is Gay? New York: Simon Pulse, 2007.
0. Jeffrey McGowanMajor Conflict: One Gay Man's Life in the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell Military. New York: Broadway, 2005.
0. Dina Matos McGreeveySilent Partner: A Memoir of My Marriage. New York: Hyperion, 2007.
0. Michael MelloLegalizing Gay Marriage. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2004.
0. Nell MillerOut of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York: Alyson, 2006.
0. David MoatsCivil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2004.
0. David G. Myers and Letha Dawson ScanzoniWhat God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.
0. William NaphyBorn to Be Gay: A History of Homosexuality. Port Stroud, UK: Tempus, 2006.
0. Dale O'LearyOne Man, One Woman: A Catholic's Guide to Defending Marriage. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2007.
0. Jonathan RauchGay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Times Books, 2004.
0. Rich C. Savin-WilliamsThe New Gay Teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
0. Leonard SaxWhy Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. New York: Doubleday, 2005.
0. Judith E. SnowHow It Feels to Have a Gay or Lesbian Parent: A Book by Kids for Kids of All Ages. New York: Harrington Park, 2004.
0. Darren SpedaleGay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
0. Peter SpriggOutrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004.
0. Glenn T. Stanton and Bill MaierMarriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
0. Laura WeibgenU.S. National Debate Topic 2005-2006: U.S. Civil Liberties. Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson, 2005.
0. Glenn Wilson and Qazi RahmanBorn Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005.
0. Liz WinfieldStraight Talk about Gays in the Workplace. New York: Harrington Park Press, 2005.
0. Evan WolfsonWhy Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.
Periodicals
0. Nate Blakeslee"Family Values," Texas Monthly, March 2007.
0. Andrew Bolt"Kids Pay for Gay Marriage," Sunday Mail (Australia), June 18, 2006.
0. Brian Callaway"A Civil War over Civil Unions?" Morning Call (Allentown, PA), February 19, 2007.
0. Nadine Chaffee"One Son's Choice: Love or Country?" Newsweek, February 5, 2007.
0. Catherine Deveny"Gay Marriage? Sure, but Why Would Anyone Want to?" The Age (Melbourne, Australia), February 28, 2007.
0. Rita Giordano"Smiles and Vows for Civil Unions," Philadelphia Inquirer, February 23, 2007.
0. Murray Hausknecht"Gay Marriage: The Third Option," Dissent, Spring 2007.
0. John Heard"Leave Wedded Bliss to Those Who Can Make Babies," Australian, March 19, 2007.
0. Gregory M. Herek"Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective," American Psychologist, September 2006.
0. Stanley Kurtz"Here Come the Brides: Plural Marriage Is Waiting in the Wings," Weekly Standard, December 26, 2005.
0. Jay F. Marks"Same-Sex Adoption Law Struck," Daily Oklahoman, May 20, 2006.
Debra Rosenberg and Karen Breslau"The Wedding March," Newsweek, August 7, 2006.
Bill Salisbury"Voters Oppose Gay Marriage Amendment," St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 28, 2006.
Paula Simons"True Love Has Neither Labels nor Limits: Marriage Is Precious to Everyone," Edmonton Journal, February 14, 2006.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 Greenhaven Press, COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale.
Source Citation:
Krauthammer, Charles. "The United States Does Not Need a Federal Marriage Amendment." Homosexuality. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2011.
Document URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010143281&mode=view&userGroupName=maum27661&jsid=3e692d8458e57b927e1752218e92c2f4
Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010143281

* YuriFan

* NiceHat - I currently own 30 (three fedoras, four baseball caps, one beret, one stocking cap, two knit ((I'm not sure what to call them...tassel hats?)) hats, fourteen hard-brim newboy caps, four soft-brim newsboy caps, and a hat I do not know what to call. I also have a couple of winter hats and one of those Chinese rice hats, but I do not include those as I do not wear those very often). I am rather well known for having "fabulous hats" at my school despite hats being against the dress code. I really want a top hat, though.

* NiceHat - I currently own 23 (three fedoras, three baseball caps, one beret, one stocking cap, two knit ((I'm not sure what to call them...tassel hats?)) hats, nine hard-brim newboy caps, and four soft-brim newsboy caps. I also have a couple of winter hats and one of those Chinese rice hats, but I do not include those as I do not wear those very often). I am rather well known for having "fabulous hats" at my school despite hats being against the dress code.

* PaleSkinnedBrunette

* SarcasmMode - Put into use regularly

* GrammarNazi - I don't exactly flip out, but I will get rather irritated if I cannot correct it. I don't mind it so much if it is an oral mistake or a stream-of-consciousness writing, though. Or, you know, writing meant to emulate speech or thought patterns.

* ShrinkingViolet - When not around my very best friends

* GrammarNazi - I don't exactly flip out, but I will get rather irritated if I cannot correct it. I don't mind it so much if it is an oral mistake or a stream-of-consciousness writing, though.

* GrammarNazi

*Bookworm

*Facepalm
*Fangirl