Replies

Now everyone knows what Married is! If not, it's in Websters. There it says man and woman. It couldn't be clearer.

Of course we still haven't seen the courts define what is a man or a woman. What about those who have had sex change operations? What about hermphrodites. What about those who via genetic defect would be difficult to classify into either sex? For example, would the proposed constitutional amendment ban any marriage by hermaphrodites?

What if people disguise their sexuality? Today if "Pat" jones and John Smith apply for a marriage license, and "Pat" is dressed as a woman, they likely would be able to marry. Will we require a DNA test in the future before granting a marriage license? Will we need to set up a federal law enforcement agency charged with rooting out gay marriage?

I fear we're going down a road that will make things even more overly complicated than they are today, and that will make it far more difficult for heterosexuals to marry.

Of course we still haven't seen the courts define what is a man or a woman. What about those who have had sex change operations? What about hermaphrodites. What about those who via genetic defect would be difficult to classify into either sex? For example, would the proposed constitutional amendment ban any marriage by hermaphrodites?

Everything I know of , when aggregated, form a 'bell curve'. Males and females have theirs. At both ends of the curve are those 'difficult to classify' and special consideration is required. The approx 98% in the center of the curves, can marry. Others can have 'civil unions', 'partnerships' or whatever.

The main difference is that we want couples to rear the next generation. The females bear the children and provide a 'home' for the family. She needs the longterm protection, assistance and finacial support of the male. The marriage contract does this. Homosextuals and lesbians, both working, don't need the same protection

. But other contracts or licenses can be made and I think should, but not marriage. That would just basterdize the language.

That would be my general outline. Laws are written for 'groups', not individuals.

When I got married we had to go to a Doctor for a blood test and examination. This should be re-instituted IMO.

I fear we're going down a road that will make things even more overly complicated than they are today, and that will make it far more difficult for heterosexuals to marry

It's not difficult now if you can afford a license. Adding an examination has more benefits than not.