why would i refute that? i dont think governments need to regulate relationships, i am not saying they dont. the government regulates all manner of things they shouldnt. simply saying they do it doesnt mean they should.

you are saying that for a while the church defined marriage? how could marriage possibly have existed without the government? how could anyone call themselves married without a government stamp of approval? it must have been immoral! cant be married without the government right?

your church is too weak to pull that off? your church needs help from your government to properly acknowledge your relationship?

actually that is exactly what you are doing.

i wont bother to try and decipher what you mean by this.

This is where you're going to start having problems. The individual
states, i.e., Massachussetts, California, et.al., may recognize
"gay marriages"...but the Feds don't have to. So, when all of these "married" couples start filing joint income tax returns, and
after 5-6 years, the IRS takes a closer look and starts to realize that it's been refunding money that it was atually OWED...watch the fur start flying then.

Well if they allow men to marry men and women to marry women? why not allow men to marry goats or sheep or anything else that is not natural? I mean don't sheep have rights? :dis:

And as far as these consent laws falling by the wayside,, HEY WAKE UP FOLKS it's no coincidence that ALL of these Moral issues are DEMOCRATS playing up for votes from minorities. They LOVE debauchery. Ted Kennedy wasn't playing crazy 8's with that woman he murdered.

Take a look across the board, at all moral issues and the candidate of your choice's stand on them. You don't care you say? As long as the economy is good? Well I got news for you when it gets so bad that criminals have more rights than victims and Kiddie Porn is the same as free press and Gays are teaching your kids it's Ok to be gay in school then folks it's time to pass Moral legislative laws.

You see left to himself Human Nature will stoop to it's lowest level but as a whole, man can aspire to espouse some sort of civility and what you do behind closed doors in YOU business. Let's not run it up a flag pole though.

Yes it may never stop, a gradual errosion of any sort of decency whatsoever, unless you VOTE angainst these freakin MORAL defficent IDIOTS. I think the word liberal explains it all. I don't think the Gov. needs to keep people from being Gay, that's not possible, but they can keep it from being "displayed" for all the kids to see. that's not suppressing anyone, that's just protecting our future.

Gays say the right wing are victimizing Gay rights and enabling Gay bashers,another contreversial subject. You know I don't think there should be ANY HATE CRIME laws on the books. I mean if a guy murdered someone WHAT difference does it make if he did it becuase he was gay? Pink? blue? black? if he is guilty than he is a damn murderer. There is no such thing as a HATE crime. they are ALL Hate CRIMES. Prosecute the bastards to the fullest letter of the law REGARDLESS of what the victim was!

if you wanted to marry a sheep i wouldnt stop you. it wouldnt bother me at all.

Interesting concept. What if I married my pet goldfish and took out a large life insurance policy on my wife Goldie and when she died of natural causes a few months later I could cash in bigtime.

that would be fine with me, although i suspect the life insurance company would charge such high premiums for human/goldfish relationships that it might kill your profits.

i wont stand between you and your love of goldie.

Again, Martin avoids the main thrusts of the post...

I am not advocating that the federal government PROTECT the INSTITUTION...Many already do. What I am asking them to do is define what some would like to muddle the definition of.

This is not protection. It's clarification. I think it's painfully obvious there's some disagreement amongst some about what the definition of a marriage is...

Better yet...Let's forget all this...

Do YOU believe that the institution-not the word, not the term, but the institution and its ideals and backbone-should be expanded to include a "marriage" of those of the same sex?

If you can answer this by saying yes, or you believe anyone else can, then we disagree. We are not alone in our disagreement. The term marriage-in the eyes of the government-has legal arrangements and caveats connected to it.

It also has deep, religious meaning to the vast majority who undertake to become married.

This means that some view it as a nonreligious experience, while some view it as just that, and the government-for whatever reason-has instituted legal situations that are associated with the institution.

I think we can agree that-for better or for worse-the government-whether you like it or not-need to clarify their stance on an institution that -whether you like it or not-they regulate to a high degree already...

Whether you agree with my stance or not, the definition of marriage needs to be DEFINED, since it's obvious some disagree. Since there are legal, governmental issues-for better or for worse-associated with the definition, it's obvious the only way around it is a determination.

Simply allowing city officials in San Francisco, Massachusetts judicial officials, and New Mexico sleepy town officials circumvent, flout, and ignore the rule of law is Un-American.

If they seek to change the system by simply ignoring the laws that they are bound by, they are no better than the laws they find so detestable.

Our Constitution allows for ways to accomplish change, and none of them advocate ignoring the rule of law.

It's as simple as that.

I have known you were sick for sometime you don't need to prove it.

expanded by whom? i think the government should not address it at all. i think churches should define what marriage is. this is like you asking me what i think the government should do about baptisms. i dont care at all about baptisms. if some churches want to baptise monkeys it doesnt bother me, even though that clearly doesnt fit the definition of baptism. the government should be secular.

you clearly are asking them to protect it by defining it. just as if you were to ask the government to define baptism. it just should not be relevant to the government, the government has no need to define marriage or baptism.

which is exactly why it should be independent of the government.

i dont care about the rule of law. had i been alive during prohibition i would have gotten more drunk than ever. i dont let the government dictate to me what is right and wrong. i also dont want my government wasting my money making and enforcing things that have no relevance. the fact is it will never ever affect me that gays get together. and if they sign some forms and call themselves married that wont affect me either. i would just prefer that there were no forms to fill out and that the government didnt care who was married to who. i surely dont give a damn who gets married to what.