[abraxas_sandiego]

While you may disagree with Newsom's actions, the legal theory behind your argument is simplistic and ineffective. Newsom has rather strong arguments as to the constitutionality of the denial of marriages based on sex and consequently sexual orientation. In the end, it will take a constitutional amendment to ensure that gays cant get married...that's not the case as of now.

[Travis McGee]

What arguements would then be? And how would the same arguements NOT hold for polygamous marriages, or father/daughter or father/son or brother/brother marriages? Please explain how 3% of the population can demand that 5,000 years of civilization may be overturned to fit THEIR preferred perversion, but not the other?

Please give a detaile, logical answer FOR homo "marriage," but AGAINST the other cases?

What homohubris to declare "MY perversion is normal and worthy of marriage, but YOUR perversion is NOT!"

[EUPHORIC]

"While you may disagree with Newsom's actions..."

Poppycock.

[Jeff Head]

Pure Bravo Sierra. Such simplistic arguements as you make, abraxas_sandiego, would then allow for a legal basis for any number of adults, irrespective of sex, orientation, etc. to consumate a marriage. Sixteen hereosexual males, five homosexual males, thrirteen lesbians and ten normal women could all come together and demand a marriage license for the whole according to your logic.

What you are ignoring, and what the entire gay agenda would have everyone ignore, but what has guided this nation since its inception in such matters is common sense and an underlying moral foundation.

The principle definition of marriage (the act which weds) and matrimony (the state which is entered as a result of marriage)is as follows:

marriage: the state, act or right of being married, a relation between a husband and wife.
matrimony: the state of being husband and wife

There is no historical precedence in this nation for anything else and what is happening now is a pure wresting and perversion of our institutions in a vain attempt to satisfy the hedonistic cravings of those pursuing alternate lifestyles in order to force them to be acceptable.

That dog don't hunt...that dog CAN'T hunt.

John Adams addressed this type of issue best with the following words:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

As we lose that defining principle...we lose our republic and all it is based upon. That is what is really happening here.

[TomasUSMC]

Mankind - has rather strong arguments as to the constitutionality of the denial of marriages based on sex and consequently sexual orientation. All World Religions also have rather strong arguments as to the constitutionality of the denial of marriages based on sex and consequently sexual orientation. In the end, it will NOT take a constitutional amendment to ensure that homos cant get married. It is just common sense and decency that will slap homos back into the closet.

[tertiary01]

I heard this interesting theory today from someone who prefers to remain nameless. If the government can get all homosexuals to marry, presto, they have in effect registered all homosexuals. He feels that in many countries and parts of the US, open homosexuality is still very dangerous, yet these people are openly registering their preferences and their names will probably be published in the newspapers. Much of the information in these newspapers can be obtained over the internet.
Weren't homosexuals registered in Nazi Germany?

[Devil_Anse]

Abrax THIS, dude. Our founding documents state that we operate on the principle that "all men are created equal." Not "all marriages are created equal."

All homosexuals can currently marry if they so choose, subject to the same restrictions the rest of us have (such as age restrictions.) They already have equal protection of the laws.