[gawd]

The people through legislation should define what marriage is, not lawbreaking mayors and tryannical judges

since homosexuals are a permenant minority everywhere, "the people", meaning the non-homosexual majority, could continue forever to define marriage in their own exclusive terms. that, my man, is democratic tyranny.

[Ol' Sparky]

There is no right to marriage guaranteed by the constitution. Further, no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married.

The issue is whether lawbreaking mayors and judges can force a redefintion of marriage against the will of the masses.

I'd prefer the people decide the issue, rather than have dictorial judges force a defintion on the nation. It's called freedom. Don't like? Move to China.

[little jeremiah]

I don't know why you continually support the homosexual activists' attempt to destroy marriage and the natural family. Homosexuals are not a class of people like blacks or Asians. They are a changing, amorphous fluid (and very small) group of people defined SOLELY by their participation in unnatural sex acts. They don't need freakin' protection. They need to get back in the closet and out of our faces, and out of the schools. They need to quit indoctrination our children.