Replies

The bottom line for me in this debate is that while I do think gay marriage is wrong, giving the power to government (any branch at any level) to regulate marriage is far worse then having gays marry.

Regulate marriage?! The FMA does not regulate marriage. It defines marriage. Since when does defining a term constitute regulation? It prevents same-sex marriage from being forced on states that don't want to recognize it. Where to you get 'regulate' out of that? Let's force same-sex marriage on states that don't want it, but that's not 'regulation'?!

Government already regulates marriage. That gave it the power to foist same sex "marriage" on the US when, constitutionally, they never had that power in the first place. You are suggesting giving more regulatory power government to correct a problem created by government...that doesn't make any sense. And yes the power to define a term that has nothing to do with government amounts to regulatory power. What would happen if this was passed is that the communists running the homosexual agenda movement would pass another amendment changing the wording of the marriage amendment...and that will give even more power to government. It's not to hard to imagine that this will all lead to government having the power to tell you whom you can't marry and who you must marry. What if government decides that our population is growing at an unsustainable rate...do you find it difficult to imagine that they would suddenly decide that heterosexual marriage should be banned and that only homosexual relationships will be valid?