[Akira]

Agreed. I believe, as any dictionary will tell you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. To make it a constitutional amendment is a joke.

[11th Earl of Mar]

I agree with you and RJ. But marriage is different.

Why should we let five Massachusetts judges make it law in their state, thus Constitutionally requiring the other 49 states to recognize it?

[John O]

Agreed. I believe, as any dictionary will tell you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. To make it a constitutional amendment is a joke.

That wouldn't happen to be the same dictionary that defines "is" would it?

Since the word marriage is not defined in the Constitution or Ammendments, it is not defined. Although our values and traditions define it as one man joined to one woman we have to realize that our courts are packed with enemies of our values and traditions. Unless we define our terms explicitly in the Constitution and Ammendments the courts will define those same terms in a way that is hostile to us and to the preservation of this union of states

The only way to prevent the court from destroying marriage is to pass and ratify the FMA. We are dealing with the devil here. We can't leave them a loophole.