This is going to be some of the outcomes of the Affordable Care Act.

Better participation in volunteer medical research will lead to better outcomes for people. It is important to understand the illnesses the American people face and how to prevent and treat them. Longevity. The ACA will have a direct impact on longevity in the USA.

By Ben Hirschler

LONDON

Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:03pm EDT

...The bumper haul of 74 gene (click here) changes that can increase risks for the three hormone-related cancers, announced by scientists on Wednesday, is the result of the largest ever study of its kind.

It follows an international project to analyze the DNA of more than 200,000 people - half of them with cancer and half from the general population - to find alterations that are more common in individuals with the disease.

Although each gene variation increases cancer risk by only a small amount, scientists calculate that the 1 percent of men carrying lots of the alterations could have a 50 percent increased risk of developing prostate cancer.

Women with multiple variants could see their risk of breast cancer increase by 30 percent....

Marriage is not a State's Right issue. Marriage applies to all the citizens. It is not an exclusive focus of only California. 

If the Supreme Court plays politics with Proposition 8 it is incompetent. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to politicize any case before them. That is legal malpractice. 

Deferring to the 'political process' to play out is not a constitutional right. The Vote is a constitutional right. The political process is not a constitutional process.

Politics falls under Freedom of Speech, but, there is no constitutional right to politics in the USA.

For Alito to state this is a new political dilemma is blatant malpractice. The reality of LGBT is as old as the species itself. Alito is showing his bigoted side. Just that simple. There are vast amounts of information about the prevalence of LGBT through history, including ancient history. Alito is biasing his opinion by even raising such bigoted remarks during the hearings.

Marriage is not defined by the Bible. The biblical definition can be interpreted by many denominations of religions for the practice of faith, but, faith has nothing to do with marriage; not at the level of government; not in the USA. 

If the practice of faith discriminates between whom is fit and whom is not fit to marry for the sake of procreation that my be a doctrine of the religion or a dogma of some kind, but, there is nothing legal about that definition. When faiths discriminate based on procreation it is about raising numbers of members based on birth and not participation. The merits of that are interestingly debated, but, are not important here.

DOMA and Proposition 8 carries the question of special status.

Basically, does California and the entire of the Legislative and Executive branches of state and federal government have the right to create a special status of citizens.

I think the implications of this decision go far beyond that of same sex marriage rights.

It is about isolating some citizens away from the right to exist in the same way as citizens within the special status, be it marriage rights or parenting rights or working status. This decision is about creating 'the right to exist' as a citizen in the USA. Why is there any special considerations in the USA for a group of citizens over that of others. Being born a citizen or achieving citizen status through immigration needs to be upheld as the only status to achieve the rights of that citizenship.

There is a lot here to be concerned about. Any adverse outcome to the status of marriage as a 'special interest' to citizen rights at this level opens up a slippery slope that could eliminate more than marriage from 'citizenship' status.

I don't see this appeal to the Supreme Court failing. Marriage is as much a right to a citizen as the right to seek education, employment, health and happiness. If the Supreme Court wants to say marriage is a special status, then does nutrition fall into that same category. Why not eliminate all rights of citizens and qualify them based in special considerations. This is nonsense, this should have been thrown out as an issue at all a long time ago.

If a special status is required for full citizenship then who determines that status. The government? Will marriage licenses now require a psychiatric certification to what a sexual identity is and whom is heterosexual and whom is not. Are you bisexual, transgender? What makes anyone think they can self identify at all? There is that whole closet stuff, too. I mean how do we protect those 'fit' to marry from those that are not? The laws themselves are completely out of line with the definition of citizenship. This entire issue is crazy. It reeks of hatred and religious bigotry. 

Those seeking to pass legislation by POPULOUS vote to challenge the definition of CITIZEN need to get over themselves. Proposition 8 and DOMA are assaults against the definition of citizen. They are legislative initiatives based in political wedge issues defined in discrimination and that is putting it politely.

Proposition 8 and DOMA state, "You can be married if..." No. No. The right of the citizen is "You can be married." End of discussion. Any Supreme Court opinion outside that parameter is simply wrong. Then competency has to be decided on the Justice. Do we as a society allow this level of hatred to exist at the level of the Supreme Court?