[Voice in your head]

"Children that grow up with two parents have less social pathologies. That has been a fact known since the early 70's. If you have a problem with statistics, then your anecdotal tale is worse than worthless in policy discussions."

The first sentence does not answer my question, nor does it contradict my point. So, I don't understand your frustration. What we wrote is in agreement, but you apparently misread what I wrote.

"And while courts are part of the government, they are not the entire government. So if the other branches, executive and legislative, would get off their duffs and do their jobs to rein in there out of control colleagues, we would not have a problem."

So are you retracting your earlier assertion? "we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage."

"Because government's job is to protect our people and out cultural institutions."

I disagree. Government's purpose is to serve as a body in which we vest our rights to self defense from force, fraud or coercion and we vest our rights to determine rules regarding use of public property.

[asmith92008]

1. The question is not simply two parents but a mother and father. You can't just take two individuals and call them parents. A mother and father offer different, and complementing, features to raising a child.

2. Government can be the best protector of marriage. All it it takes is the people exerting their will on the elected branches to rein in the judiciary.

3. A nation is not simply an economic entity. The government does more than simply enforce contracts and control public property. If the government allows the culture to dissolve, we will become isolated islands of atomistic hedonism. That way leads to the death of our nation.

[asmith92008]

Question: Do you think that animal cruelty should be a criminal act? I'm not talking about for food or medical research, but just kicking your dog because you feel like kicking your dog.