Replies

This was a hot button subject recently in our local paper. I argued something similar to what these law experts have said.

Basically the 5 Supremes rendered a majority “opinion” on same sex marriage. It is only their “opinion” and therefor not binding as the law of the land. It still needs to go through the process in Congress and be signed by the President to become law. I doubt it could be done right now but with a very liberal Congress and Prez like in 2009/2010 it might fly.

It could still be argued that it went against the Constitution and would take a Constitutional Amendment to become the law of the land.

Changing something so basic to human existence in such a willy nilly way without anything in our guiding documents to back it up is unacceptable.

I didn’t have any objection to anyone getting a legal union and recognized by the state but it could not be called ‘marriage’ as that word and what it implies is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. I actually don’t care if some sick perv wants to be in a legal union with his cats as long as no animal abuse happens.

It should be interesting to see how all this washes out. I think some courageous senators and reps need to take this issue up so it can be settled one way or the other and if so; in what way.

I suggested gays use the word ‘squeegie’ in place of ‘marriage’ and ‘squeezer’ and ‘squeezie’ in place of husband and wife. Just a suggestion but I do think it would satisfy most the objections because then society in general would know we weren’t talking about a traditional marriage and in fact a legal union not recognized by the church. A win win I think.

The gays in our society should be able to come up with a set of words just for them. They did, after all, hijack the word ‘gay’.