[kabar]

Get the Gov’t out of many social issues: gay marriage, reproduction, drugs. The Constitution does not address these issues, so leave them to the States or individuals.

So the federal government should rely on whatever definition of marriage the states have when it comes to providing federal benefits like SS, Medicare, federal pensions, survivorship benefits, etc.? If so, then someone in MA will be treated differently than someone in AL.

[Colofornian]

Get the Gov’t out of many social issues: gay marriage, reproduction, drugs. The Constitution does not address these issues, so leave them to the States or individuals. (kgrif_Salinas)

So the federal government should rely on whatever definition of marriage the states have when it comes to providing federal benefits like SS, Medicare, federal pensions, survivorship benefits, etc.? If so, then someone in MA will be treated differently than someone in AL. (kabar)

Exactly...

And then you figure in Surfer's big push to likewise leave the definition of the marriage "to the states."

Then all we need is the Socialist Republic of Vermont, or polygamous-haven Utah, to define whether two, three or more partners is acceptable.

And then all polygamous (& growing) unions rush to that state or those states to get married...and then what, Kgrif? Then what Surfer?

Whose definition of marriage gets honored then???

Flaming relativists is what we have here...disguised as "conservatives"...

No backbone. No conviction to stand for anything worth standin' for...