[Bokababe]

I know that I am in the minority here and will likely get slammed for what I am about to say, but I'll say it anyway. It is not for government to decide what is or isn't "a marriage". All that government should be involved in is recognizing a legal partnership. Defining "marriage" should be left to priests, rabbis, clergy and even the individuals themselves. Giving the concept of "marriage" over to a secular government to define is like asking whores to define the concept of "purity".

There is really no way to win this "marriage" issue with politicians in this day and age -- except to take the issue out of their hands-- but people just keep trying.

[JSDude1]

Well then you have to get government out of tax issues (or get rid of the IRS as te same time) becuase the priary reason that government is in the business of recognizing marriage is for Taxes/tax filings.

[Ransomed]

You are right. Gubberment involvement in marriage has been awful for the ol’ institution. Now we have folks so condtioned that they think a piece of paper from the gubberment makes someone more or less married, even if its a marriage that is impossible, like two men or two women.

That gubberment screwed this up shouldn’t be shocking to conservatives.

Freegards

[roses of sharon]

Ah, if only it would end there....after homosexuals “marry”, as sanctioned by government, then comes hate crime laws against churches, preachers, pastors, etc. (as in Canada)

It's coming!

[vrwc1]

It is not for government to decide what is or isn't "a marriage". All that government should be involved in is recognizing a legal partnership. Defining "marriage" should be left to priests, rabbis, clergy and even the individuals themselves.

So you're OK with polygamous "marriages", incestuous "marriages", "marriage" to animals, "marriage" to inanimate objects, etc? Because that's where your suggestion logically leads all the crackpots out there.

[manc]

sounds great but then you have the benefits, you have employers who have to fork out extra and how do we know if two men are not room mates or homos anyway.
How do we know they are not just wanting the health benefits from work etc?

the fact is that if we allow this as you say then we should not allow Govt to have a say in any kind of marriage so when bubba comes in to his job and says he is just married to his goat then does his employer now have to pay for vet benefits?

fact is there is a line int eh sane , on one side it is normal marriage the other side of the line if anything goes

which side are you on?

[heye2monn]

Marriage IS a public issue. Society has a vital interest in marriage and social stability. Every civilization strongly encourages marriage through laws and custom. None takes your libertarian view.

If that’s too theoretical for you, then listen to this. If government doesn’t endorse and protect male-female marriage, the liberals will run right over us. Once you let gay marriage in the door, then all other homosexual laws come with it — “equal rights” laws imposing the homosexual agenda on our kids in schools, our workplaces, dating services (E-harmony.com in New Jersey), and even our churches. This has aleady happened in Massachusetts where the gay agenda has run wild after homosexual marriage went on the books.

Also, seeing gays make a joke of marriage surely influences young people to not take marriage seriously themselves. Shacking up is a huge problem, with all the out of wedlock births and single mothers with their young thug sons running loose. And one more thing, it is child abuse to deprive an adopted child of a mother or a father. That’s what happens when you allow homosexual marriage and adopted children. No mom or no dad there.