I agree with the first for certain, even though I stated prior that it should be left up to the states. I guess maybe I was thinking more along the lines of "civil unions" or whatever the heck they want to call it--I could really care less if a couple guys want to be together, although I have no understanding of why that would be. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would have helped alleviate a lot of this. I agree with marriage being between a man and a woman. As an aside, I am really just tired of the homosexual agenda in general. It's non-stop, in your face, everyday, in almost every facet of life. It's getting really old.
Concerning the legal chaos, that's something unavoidable in many instances when issues are left for the states to decide. Heck, take the firearms laws for example. I live in Missouri, where you can carry concealed in your vehicle without a permit. However, if I cross over into East Germany...uh, I mean...Illinois, then I have to take the gun, unload it, and put the gun and ammunition each in their own separate, locked cases out of reach from the driver. Legal chaos is part and parcel of having 50 distinct and separate government entities and one giant national government.
Marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony and child custody issues are so much more entangling than gun laws however. A temporary burden of changing your behavior while you visit another state is not all that chaotic. If you moved to a different state permanently, you’d have to follow their gun laws and change your behavior permanently. But unlike with a marriage, that affects just one person’s behavior and expectations, your own.
There is much more uncertainty involved for other parties when you are in a marriage or union and you move to another state which might not consider it valid. When you’re in a contract and something may or may not be able to declare it null and void, that’s guaranteed to send you into the courts for messy proceedings. Different state gun laws aren’t going to send people to court to hash out civil matters between each other.
I never thought it was necessary or pragmatic to regulate private behavior behind closed doors between consenting adults. But the idea of same-sex marriage is a fundamental reordering of the law. And it is greatly offensive to the constitution to see that done by judges. I believe the handful of states that voted for it were by people who don’t understand and probably haven’t been told the consequences of it. I think it’s a case of that 20% radical segment of the population directing the traffic of where the low-fos go.
As far as the homosexual agenda, it’s very clear it has no end game in sight. It is a radical, unnatural belief system that will never stop trying to get more power and make more and more radical changes to society if the rest of us sit back and let them. We all can already see or predict where the next stops are after same-sex marriage...legalized pedophilia, “transgender” mutilation of children, public sexual displays, homosexuality being taught as the norm.
We just saw the radical feminists last week writing in very carefully thought-out, literate language the utterly unnatural and insane idea that all heterosexual sex is rape. The radicals of yesterday that pushed for same-sex marriage 30 years ago have made themselves the mainstream cultural drivers of today. It will either continue in this direction or it will be turned back by proud and unafraid believers in the American system and Judeo-Christian principles.
“...I could really care less if a couple guys want to be together, although I have no understanding of why that would be.”
There are several reasons, depending on how far into leftist ideology one wants to venture, but one of the most common drivers is unspoken,,,, just follow the money . . . getting company or government “benefits”. Using the law to impose societal acceptance is another.
Why?
Marriage is what it ALWAYS has been 'defined'.
All this 'redefining' stuff is for the birds!