[Quick1]

No, it's not a separate problem. If you're going to make a Constitutional Amendment to save marriage, then you should include something dealing with the high rate of divorce in this country, period. You imply that homosexual marriage is the only thing bringing marriage under fire, and you are completely wrong.

To correct your analogy, it would be like ignoring stereos being burglarized from ohuses because TVs are also being stolen.

[Always Right]

No, it's not a separate problem. If you're going to make a Constitutional Amendment to save marriage, then you should include something dealing with the high rate of divorce in this country, period.

No, that is ridiculous. The Constitution should only contain principles that don't change. A marriage will always be between a man and a woman in a moral society. A specific fix for divorse is not something that can be put in the Constitution. It is silly that a marriage must be spelled out this way, but when you have judges who insist that black is white, you are forced to override the idiot by going to the Constitution and saying, white is really white.

[Zack Nguyen]

Yes, it is a separate problem. They both effect marriage and must be attacked separately. Divorce is a terrible problem, and I have yet to hear even one person who stands against homosexual marriage say otherwise. I have never implied that homosexual mariage is the only thing bringing marriage under fire.

There are a lot of things we can do to fix divorce in this country, and only a few of those things are political in nature.

Instead of talking about how much you want to fix heterosexual divorce, why not lay your cards on the table and simply say that you have no problem with homosexuals marrying?