Marriage IS a public issue. Society has a vital interest in marriage and social stability. Every civilization strongly encourages marriage through laws and custom. None takes your libertarian view.
If that’s too theoretical for you, then listen to this. If government doesn’t endorse and protect male-female marriage, the liberals will run right over us. Once you let gay marriage in the door, then all other homosexual laws come with it — “equal rights” laws imposing the homosexual agenda on our kids in schools, our workplaces, dating services (E-harmony.com in New Jersey), and even our churches. This has aleady happened in Massachusetts where the gay agenda has run wild after homosexual marriage went on the books.
Also, seeing gays make a joke of marriage surely influences young people to not take marriage seriously themselves. Shacking up is a huge problem, with all the out of wedlock births and single mothers with their young thug sons running loose. And one more thing, it is child abuse to deprive an adopted child of a mother or a father. That’s what happens when you allow homosexual marriage and adopted children. No mom or no dad there.
I am not arguing that point, because I agree with you. What we are arguing about is how to get there.
I am saying that if you look around, "government ISN'T going to protect marriage", because they aren't doing it now. Check the article's title -- DC is only "RECOGNIZING gay marriages performed in other States". Those States have already caved. And the populist approach isn't going to work because the numbers are increasingly for gay marriage, not against it.
You, manc and vrwc1 can "shoot the messenger" all you want, but it doesn't change the demographics or the political will of those who want to impose this on us.
I am simply suggesting a way of neutralizing the argument because it is the best plan I can see to prevent government from shoving this down our throats.
"Politics is the art of what is possible", period. What I and Ransomed have suggested is both Constitutional and "possible". What you are suggesting might have been possible 20 years ago, but isn't anymore because the numbers don't support it.
nail on head
this is about just marriage as the media and homos would have some believe.
It is about an agenda, which means if they get ,marriage they get adoption, then they get it taught in schools, like MA has become.
One only has t look at MA to see how messed up that state has become and I only hope the people get to vote there one day on this.
The homos used MA for a stepping stone a base from where they can spread their agenda.
They got so scared when they thought the people were going to vote that the big guns of the Dem party came in, back room deals were made, or basically bribes were made.
A legislature in Framingham voted yes to a vote the first time and was going to vote yes again but Patrick went o have a word and within a few hours of the vote she changed her mind.
Weeks later she received a large sum of money for her district
MMMMMMMMMM. wonder why?????????????????
They said they wanted civil unions but it was not what they wanted really, and they will never stop either until they have made people in this country give up like a poster on here who would never vote against homo marriage.
we get the word out, we tell our children as I have mine. They are aware of the brainwashing once they go to middle school next year.
Why do you think they have the homosexual groups in high school and even in middle school, so other kids can just accept them.