[Deep_6]

Re:
"....Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make
an exclusive commitment to one another...."

Under law, it absolutely should be permitted. There is no legal reason to
deny any two people making a lifelong commitment the benefits others
making the same commitment receive, simply because they meet a religious
description of "marriage".

 If a lesbian female can marry a homosexual male; if we allow jailed
death-row prisoners to take vows of marriage; if we do not reject any
marriage under any other circumstances as long as both are of opposite
sex, then we are disallowing with hypocrisy and prejudice, Constitutional
rights and justice for all those of same-sex commitments

[armadale]

Amen.

[Always Right]

There is no legal reason to deny any two people making a lifelong commitment the benefits others making the same commitment receive, simply because they meet a religious description of "marriage".

The ability to reproduce. The government has no compelling reason to care if Steve and Jim stay together in a committed relationship. BTW, if you really know the gay community, gays refers to actual gay marriages as 'mythical', because it is so rare in the gay community that two partners stay together very long. A study puts the length of these gay 'marriages' at 1.5 years vs. 7.2 years for a man and woman marriage.

[scripter]

Two day ago I posted the following to you

Homosexual behavior, monogamous or not, results in severe health hazards. There's no evidence homosexual behavior is anything other than just that, behavior, and behavior that can be changed.

If you don't have a problem with folks engaging in a destructive lifestyle, perhaps, unknowingly, you don't really care for the well being of gays? As I see it, the true friends of gays are those who condemn homosexual behavior and accept homosexuals as the human beings that they are.

For a different angle on where this homosexual marriage issue may bring us, check out what Boston columnist Howie Carr said here.

You responded with nothing but misdirection and misinformation. When asked to support your statements you didn't respond and I know why... you can't support your statements. The facts support what I said above and if you think otherwise, post a reference that supports your position. Anything else and you're supporting the homosexual agenda.

[reagandemocrat]

Black's Law Dictionary:

"MARRIAGE. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. 1 Bish.Mar. & Div. Sec. 3; Collins v Hoag & Rollins, 121 Neb. 716, 238 N.W. 351, 355; Allen v. Allen, 73 Conn. 54, 46 A. 242, 49 L.R.A. 142."

[R. Scott]

There is no legal reason to deny any two people making a lifelong commitment the benefits others making the same commitment receive, simply because they meet a religious description of "marriage".

There is also no morale reason to deny two homosexuals the responsibility concurrent with legal marriage. Why should they be denied the benefits of divorce, spousal support, alimony, community property and all the other restraints imposed on heterosexuals?

[Alouette]

There is no legal reason to deny any two people

Even if they are brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter...

[hocndoc]

When adulterer Kobe Bryant is lauded for "putting it all behind him" by playing for millions of dollars per game, when the entertainment shows adore Seigfreid and Roy, when Family Hour TV sitcoms show every kind of sexual immorality, I wonder who's shocked and why.