Sometimes, the truth hurts our delicate sensibilities.

That was a well reasoned response. >sarc<

Ummmmm.... last I checked all American citizens are sovereign since our governments derive their power FROM The People.

Sooo... I have never seen two male dogs at least trying to have sex and those scientists who documented all the other same gender pair bonding inanimals from birds to apes are lying... and the video is fake? riiiiight!

So it is cool if you use your mouth on someone you like but it isn't cool if someone else does it to someone they like? I got ya!

Hypocrite.

There are MILLIONS of things that are legal that do nothing to make our society better and MANY things that are bad for society that are legal. Your perceived "benefit to society" is not a legal test for constitutionality. The Constitution is the test.

You are lucky we have not banned something you do or want to do we deem to be offensive.... maybe your thing is on our list to ban next?

The ballot is limited to what the Constitution says is within government's power. There are things called "rights" that are inalienable. This means that even if 99.9999% of the population votes to ban something, if it is a right then it is protected by the constitution. One of our inalienable rights is the right to enter into uncoerced contracts with whom ever we choose. Another inalienable right is equal application of the law. And yet another is the right to exercise our religion. Now, you might say that the right to marry is not mentioned in the constitution. You would be correct. However, the constitution also specfically states that the rights described in the constitution are not our only rights. The constitution also specifically describes the powers granted to the government AND that ifa specific power isnot mentioned then the government has no authority over the matter. Marriage is not mentioned as something the government has the authority to regulate. Thus, you can vote all you like and you still don't have the power to use governmental forceto infringe on individual rights. This is the whole idea behind the constitution, to protect the individual and their rightsfrom the majority opinion of the day.

In short: Your efforts to bansame gender marriage contractsmakes you no better than the leftist morons who think they can force me toenter into a contract with ahealth insurance company.

Crack a book once in a while and you might learn that almost all animals have a homosexual population. Thus, homosexual behavior is biologically normal. I sure hope your spouse/sexual partners never performed oral sex on you or you on them 'cause your satement would make you a hypocrite. After all, oral sex is aberant and biologically abnormal... right? That is what you said... or is ok as long as the "right" people do it?

Honestly I don't understand how you people come to your opinions, it certainly isn't through logic or reason.

So... it's not that gays never want to marry for love, it's that they do only want to marry for financial reasons? You do realize that when you say they only want to marry for a specific reason you are saying allother reasons are excluded?

But to answer your question: I again say "why" doesn't matter. We don't ask men why they want to marry a woman as a condition for granting their license so we shouldn't ask "why" of a man who wants to marry another man. I submit the ONLY "why" that is material to the argument is to exercise the rights other people exercise. This is sufficient cause.

Again, why can adults engage in any contract they like except the one you don't want them to? Where do you derive this authority? Where is your authority to pick and chose what other people can contract for described? Do they violate another person's rights through their contract? This is the only way the force of government would and can be used to limit a private contract between two adults.

The subject of the post is "tradition" and it's use as an argument for continuing to enforce an unconstitutional law. The article said marriage defined as being between a man and a woman should be continued because it is our tradition. My point is that it used to be our tradition not to let women vote in this country (along with other traditionsenforced by law that were later deemed unconstitutional). Just because we have always done it a certain way doesn't mean we have been doing it right.

Ok...if marriage is a legal contract then how do you justify preventing aconsenting adult from entering into a legal cotract with another consenting adult based on their gender? Where in the constitution does it give you or the government the right to infringe onhundreds of years oldand well established contract rights?

You clearly state that gays only want to marry for financial reasons and not love...it is insanity to make that assumption.

The right to a religious marriage is protected under the first amendment where it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;..." Defining the religious ritual known as"Marriage" in such a way to exclude one religion's versionof said ceremony in favor of another religion's version is in effect establishing a state religion as well as preventing the free exercise of the oppressed religion. ESPECIALLY since the defining of "marriage" prevents access to legal status protected under the Constitution's mandate that laws be equally applied. Creating laws that prevent the entering into a marriage contract between two conseting adults also violates their right to enter into legally binding contracts free of gender discrimination.

You said: "Why do gay people want to get married? One reason, and one reason only --- Monetary."

You are basing your position on the (soinsenely illogical and completely wrong)assumtion that gay people can't love each other and want to marry because of their love? This supposition is so silly that if you actually believe it there is no point in destroying your argument with logic and reason. You clearly are at odds with reality thus reason would be as water off a duck's back..