[stopem]

Gee maybe the Mormons didnt realize that this was discrimination or that their rights were taken away.
Maybe they will demand their rights to polygamy or polyandry.
And the beat goes on. Where will it end? No one seems to know.
I really thought Bush was on to something with the amendment BUT.......maybe not, he sure isnt getting any support from the GOP on this.....disappointing!!

[tpaine]

Congressman Billybob in the United States, first in its colonies and later in its states, the definition of marriage for almost four centuries has been one man with one woman. The only exception to this was among the early Mormons, who accepted polygamy. However, after Congress passed the Mann Act which criminalized polygamy and was upheld in the Supreme Court, the Mormon Church changed its definition of marriage to the classical one. -billybobby-

_______________________________________

Bob-billy , you really should do a little research before pontificating on history..
The Mormon Church "changed their definition"/mind about separation of church & state back in the 1890's, in order to get Utah admitted as a State in the Union.
Congress rightly refused them statehood until they could come up with an acceptable state constitution that supported a republican form of government, -- rather than a theocracy.
5 tpaine

Gee maybe the Mormons didnt realize that this was discrimination or that their rights were taken away.

What rights? Do you believe they have a 'right' to set up a state government that discriminates against non-believers in their religion?
Sorry, -- but that's not how a republican form of government works.

Maybe they will demand their rights to polygamy or polyandry. And the beat goes on. Where will it end? No one seems to know. I really thought Bush was on to something with the amendment BUT.......maybe not, he sure isnt getting any support from the GOP on this.....disappointing!!

I find it encouraging that most have the wisdom to realize that we shouldn't amend our constitution for such petty reasons.. Traditional marriage can be defended by using the constitution as it exists.