On the other hand, she looks like this:
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand the State should get out of the marriage business in terms of special economic benefits from marriage etc...
On the other hand maintaining a culture DEPENDS on stable families and stable two parent NORMAL marriages are a KEYSTONE to a civil society and should be promoted and protected at all costs.
I also think that EVERY church has the right NOT to marry anyone who they don’t want getting married.
I also think that EVERY employer has a right to define what they see as a benefit and the parameters that surround it, ie. you work for a christian company you won’t get same-sex marriage benefits unless they want to offer them.
Two unmarried heterosexual people can live in sin all they want, is that not a good enough example for the homosexual couples out there....?
I think i end up more on the side that Government should get out of the business of CONTROLLING marriage be it the definition of such or the punishment of those who don’t want to fall in line of the progressive version of marriage.
You can be fired from your job if you don’t believe in samesex marriage.
The "lady" in the article said her 3 kids have 5 parents and she wants the government to force society to say this is normal.
+1 but, who defines living in sin?
To my way of thinking the state has decided they are the arbitors of what the word marriage means culturally and under the law.
I think two people can be joined in a ceremony, defined by their choice and objective, outside the gay lobby.
I see it as a “We write and agree to the terms and conditions of of our union”.
I don’t understand the governments role in marriage.
On the other hand, she looks like this: