And what about the hateful language from the left that goes to attack the people who support traditional marriage? Or is it only "judgmental" when the right does it?
Personally, I do not believe that the state should be sanctioning any form of personal relationships, as that is the domain of God, but I am so disgusted and put off by the outright hate that I get for holding the religious views that I do about marriage that I'd vote for a this type of amendment just to stick a fork in the eyes of the people who hate on me so much.
“Wars have started over less.”
You have already declared war. You express surprise when we put on our armour?
We are not quick to fight and stand up for ourselves, but the time has come.
Gay marriage supporters opt to intimidate
. . .Same-sex-marriage supporters' constant mantra has been that Minnesotans who support one man-one woman marriage are motivated by bigotry. Gay-marriage proponents make this claim even about people who merely support letting Minnesotans vote on the issue.
The Star Tribune's recent editorial on the marriage amendment was typical. "Don't put bigotry on the ballot," its headline ran.
But people who support one man-one woman marriage are not bigots. They argue, very reasonably, that marriage is rooted in nature -- in male/female sexual complementarity -- and that children need both a mother and a father. They say that's why it has been the bedrock institution of procreation and social order in virtually all times and places.
Same-sex-marriage supporters' attempt to tar this view as "bigotry" seems designed to shield them from tough questions as they campaign to redefine the world's fundamental social institution. Labeling your opponent a "bigot" is the ultimate rhetorical mudball--a classic slur intended to silence and intimidate rather than to facilitate an exchange of ideas.