This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage. To "some degree", otherwise, there would be no difference in marriage law from state to state are there exists now.
Thank you. I accept your apology.
I'm against the "state" (be it federal or state) siding with homosexual marriage not only because it's immoral (based on my religious belief), but it also goes against biology (mother nature) as it's a genetic dead end which is anti-natural.
That, of course, doesn't touch on the issue that has also been brought up here...in that this is a slippery slope. If two men are allowed to "marry", then there is nothing that would stop 5 men from marrying, or a father marrying his (of age) daughter. People would say, well, you can't do that because you might produce a genetically compromised offspring. Who says the marriage has to be about producing offspring? Obviously, that's God's will...but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are viable that don't produce offspring (for a variety of reasons). So, since offspring isn't (nor cant) be a requirement for marriage...what's is now to stop a father from marrying his daughter?
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the reason we had this decision today stems from the fact that the elected representatives (& courts) in the state of CA did not defend the will of the people of that state when they voted to ban same-sex marriage.
/rant off.
Cheers (& I mean it).
Thank you. Like I said earlier there were many folks cheering this on because, ‘it got the government out of marriage’. No, no, it didn’t.