[Hoot Gibson]

I sincerely doubt the founding fathers could have concieved an issue like this as being within the realm of possibility. Therefore, the need to define marriage as between one man and one woman didn't seem neccessary at the time due to the fact that marriage was clearly defined in the scriptures.

Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

The Lord Jesus speaking;
4" And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


Permitting gays to marry legally, legitimizes the lifestyle. If the court system rolls over on this one I don't know how there could be any restriction on marriage whatever. Any two, or for that matter any group, of people would have to be extended the legal right to marry. What will be the new guideline for what is to be considered a legal marriage? Anything at all as long as the participants are human?

Nobody is stopping gays from being together. This isn't about rights, it's about legitimizing the lifestyle. Let them live together if they want, it's not up to anyone of us to judge them but passing laws in support of gay marriage is another blunder.

I agree with most of what you said above. My point about the Constitution is that if it is silent on marriage, for whatever reason, then it is a matter for state governments to address, which they hav been doing for more than 200 years. If, as a conservative, I were to advocate a federal solution short of a constitutional amendment, then I would b a hypocrite. I don't want the Supreme Court meddling in areas that the founders left to the states to legislate, regardless of my personal opinion.

As for voting, I would vote against legalizing gay marriage and against anti-sodomy laws that would apply to adults. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want to each other but they have no right to force government to endorse their lifestyle decision by recognizing their unions. If the majority disagrees with me on this issue, then I can live with their decision. It's not a major issue to me. Federal courts trampling on individual and state rights is a huge issue to me.