[mvpel]

The only reason anyone gives a cr@p about the definition of marriage is because of all the tax and legal benefits that arise because of it. If we stripped our governments of the power to license and register marriage, we would be back to the fundamental issue involved, that is, the right of contract.

Government's role should be in the enforcement of contracts, not in the definition of what contracts are and are not legitimate.

[lelio]

Government's role should be in the enforcement of contracts, not in the definition of what contracts are and are not legitimate.

Well put!

If this goes through, I would like to know what they intend to do with pre- and post- op transexuals, and I think it should be written into the amendment.

[The Iguana]

The only reason anyone gives a cr@p about the definition of marriage is because of all the tax and legal benefits that arise because of it. If we stripped our governments of the power to license and register marriage, we would be back to the fundamental issue involved, that is, the right of contract.

Government's role should be in the enforcement of contracts, not in the definition of what contracts are and are not legitimate.

I'd agree with you, but there is no getting around the Full Faith and Credit clause.

If New jersey legalizes gay marriage, Utah will have to recognize it whether it likes it or not.

I don't like using the sledgehammer of a constitutional amendment. But I don't see how the Full Faith and Credit clause leaves us much alternative.