[Diamond]

all I’m saying is that on a constitutional level, it is very difficult for me to defend NOT allowing same-sex couples to be married.

While my reaction here is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this thread, I must say that the Constitution itself is based on the Natural Law, which is insensate to the oxymoronic concept of "same-sex marriage". I think It is naive in the extreme to imagine that forcing every citizen of a State at the barrel of a gun viz a viz the law to accept the self-contradictory notion of gay "marriage" is not a threat the the liberty of religious institutions, not to mention the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of every citizen. When laws are made that violate the Natural Law don't be surprised when your true liberties are destroyed.

If "gay marriage" it something a person with mental disorders like Obamination would favor, (at least secretly if not openly, purely for marxist dialectical, political reasons) shouldn't that be a warning sign to you that there might be something wrong with it?

Cordially,

[Candor7]

all I’m saying is that on a constitutional level, it is very difficult for me to defend NOT allowing same-sex couples to be married.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The constitution does not mention sex, marriage or homo sexuality, at east the last time I read it last week. Has Obama changed it already?