[Libloather]

"This is a rights issue, not a religious issue."

Holy matrimony is a right - and not religious? Don't think so...

[MineralMan]

They were right to be nervous about the language in this bill. Since we are guaranteed the right to "peaceably assemble" and to make contracts, any law that restricted folks from doing so would not stand any judicial test.

Legislatures would be wise to simply define marriage as between a man and a woman and leave other sorts of legal relationships alone.

If they try to expand this to demonstrate that they are opposed to all relationships between same-sex partners, they will lose in court every time.

[Unam Sanctam]

"This is a dog in a fight where there is no fight."

Wilful blindness -- there's no stopping the imperial left-wing judiciary.

Michael Coats of Rapid City told lawmakers he should have the same right to a loving relationship as anyone else. "Do I as a gay man have the right to exist?" he asked.

Complete non-sequitur and irrelevance alert.

[Right Wing Professor]

The same thing happened in Nebraska. Most of the weasels in the unicameral claimed to be for the Defense of Marriage Bill, but every time one was actually put before them, professed to be 'concerned' about all sorts of impacts the language might have on other contracts. We eventually passed the most restrictive act in the country by petition, and amazingly enough, it seems to have had no effect at all on other contracts.

Advice to South Dakotans; give up on the legislature, and do this by initiative.

More advice to South Dakotans. Move. It's far too cold even here in Nebraska.