Gay Marriage

quote:

---

That isn't the point of the exercise. The point is understanding why it is this way to begin with. By understanding it, you will in turn be able to understand the rationale of people who find homosexual marriage objectionable.

---

Well, if you find same gender marriage objectionable, don't marry someone of the same gender.One couple that got married in California this last week was a lesbian couple that had been togather 40 years.And after 4 years of observation, we see how horribly gay marriage has affected Massachusetts.

I personally think the law should sanction their 'marriage'. I don't see what the big whoop de do is. I mean, the various churches don't have to recognize it from a religious standpoint anyway, and the 'marriage' gives them certain legal protections for their relationships that the rest of us take for granted.

So,I think that either gays can marry gays, and get the legal protections provided any other couple, or that the government get out of the marriage business all togather, and only provide 'civil' contracts.My advice, if you don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't marry one.It's been 4 years since gay marriage was allowed in Massachusetts. So for, the world hasn't ended, and nothing unusual happened there.

Perhaps if you define 'natural law'You are totally misunderstanding the point. The point was 'homosexual parings are found in nature, therefore, they are natural.'

Of course, the federal constitution take precedence over the individual state constitutions. For example, South Carolina removed the ban for interracial marriage from their constitution in 1998, 103 years after it was made unenforceable because of a supreme court ruling.Should the supreme court jump in, and take a stand, it could be the Defense of Marriage act and the various state constitutions can be made
obsolete in their stance.The fact you were from Missouri does explain a lot.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.