Replies

The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage.

I agree completely with the exception of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

Don't believe that. They have completely failed in every attempt. Every federal court that has looked at it concludes that states have compelling interests in maintaining traditional marriage between a man and a woman to promote procreation. The Ninth Circuit has ruled similarly. There is no chance that any circuit court will change that, and even less than no chance the USSC would concur. Lots of people want gay marriage, and if they want to do that in their state, fine.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.

Given the history of the Radical Republicans in the 1860s, I'll take that as a complement.

"Lots of people want gay marriage, and if they want to do that in their state, fine."

Did you not read this part? "The situation at this moment could be called a triumph of anti-federalism. Not only do states not have an individual voice in this debate – one state, Massachusetts, has imposed homosexual marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution on the other 49 states. Coverage of the marriage battle being fought across America often overlooks the corrupt nature of what happened in Massachusetts. The citizens of Massachusetts had conducted a signature drive to put the marriage issue on the ballot for a commonwealth-wide referendum there. Extra parliamentary and illegal maneuvers by the Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Birmingham kept the legislature from conducting a vote to put the measure on the ballot. Experts believe the legislature would have approved the measure had it ever been put to a vote, and the resulting public referendum would have resoundingly supported traditional marriage.

The refusal of one House leader to allow the vote in the legislature deprived the public of its voice in the debate in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts took advantage of the delay to issue a decision which thwarted the will of the people and substituted, in its place, the will of a handful of liberal judges. "

The USSC has been asked in the past to address this, (hopefully will be again now that the legislature has refused to put this on the ballot again) but they had refused. This state does not want homosexual marriage, and the court and homosexuals activists, as well as a lot of the legislature know that, which is why they refuse to allow it on the ballot. That is not states rights, that is usurping states rights. Likewise all states that have allowed civil unions, without allowing the states (citizens) to answer it on a ballot question. Anywhere it has been put to the voters, it has failed.