This is ridiculous. You are arguing like a liberal, by taking a word that has a set defintion and redefinging it to mean what you think it should mean in order to impose social change based only on a misunderstanding or incorrect definition of marriage. You said that the definition of marriage didn’t matter. Hogwash – words mean things. By taking the whole meaning of marriage over history and throwing it away for a desired social change, you have definitely shown that you aren’t a traditional conservative. As Kirk (and EPU) have pointed out, we respect tradition. We don’t follow it blindly, but we don’t throw it away needlessly, either.

If we don’t say anything about the names and labels you use in the debate, then we accept them. That is all this is about. Don’t act like it surprises you or hurts you. Moe has given you some advice, and if you want to carry on I would suggest you follow it.

You will now write exactly that, nothing more, nothing less.

Moe Lane

PS: You have also made it abundantly clear that you consider gays to be icky. You may stop doing that, now.

That is not a request.

As to the Supreme Court, don’t hold your breath. I predict they will deny cert themselves into no more than a figurehead.

As for what’s in a society’s best interest, respect for standards of behavior that have served us well for millenia might be a decent starting point. Rash rewriting of societal mores, without considering consequences, is foolish, dangerous, and evil.

This is why we need the law. It is to tell judges that their knowledge, understanding, and loyalty to the Constitution is not superior. In fact it is usually inferior.

Of course all that is in practice irrelevant now as adherence to the Constituion has long been violated by all three branches of government; and the vast majority of Americans now likely wouldn’t tolerate living under it.

Back to the main issue, whatever the reasons involved, making marriage “same sex” is in fact a change, not a long-hidden discovery. Contrary to your opinion, I would want a good reason to change something that has been defined the same way for hundreds of years (and thousands of years around the world discounting polygamy). Legislatures should never need a good reason NOT to change something but a good reason TO change it.

But we are right back where we started because your statement, that homosexuals marrying one another is wrong, is not a rationale, it is a conclusion.

What I am interested in is what factors you consider that lead you to the conclusion that you’ve presented. Make the argument – provide a premise or two, layer on some inference, and then hit me with your conclusion.

I await your response. Thanks.

So basically, what I meant was that the law doesn’t distinguish meaningfully between random sex acts and sex acts in a marriage.

But I dont think that government should bestow benefits on one class of married persons while denying another class the same benefits.

I don’t believe there is anything about a promise to another person that can be breached at any time without consequences that are specifically applied to the party in breach.

The government does not have a role in marriage. It requires you to get a license but only does so in order to make sure that unmarried persons cannot claim the incentives built into the tax code and various other regulatory schemes designed to encourage the practice.

Do you really think that the marriage contract involves government? It is an agreement between consenting parties who exchange promises that are well known to everyone.

The government provides incentives, yes, but do I consider that marriage is some sort of tripartite agreement between government and a couple? Absolutely not.

If I am switching back and forth it is only because I’m having to deal with responses that are originating from 10 different viewpoints. Most of them are irrelevant to my initial post, but I dont like being rude. If someone cares enough to post a response directed toward me, I try to respond to the best of my ability.

You say I dont answer direct questions, well, you just responded to a direct question without even attempting to answer it.

Ooh. How simplistic.

Yeah. Exactly.

Who am I to say it’s wrong, you ask? Who are you to say it isn’t? We legislate morality all the time. One could make the argument that most – if not all – laws are a reflection of SOMEONE’S idea of right and wrong, and are therefore a codification of some form of morality.

We can get into all these ethereal discussions about the granting of powers (or lack thereof) to the government, but at the end of the day, the founders were trying to create an environment in which a moral society could thrive. James Madison himself said the Constitution was written for a moral society, and that it would be wholly inadequate to the governance of any other type of society.

So how does the openly accepted practice of homosexuality affect a society (not even getting to the gay marriage part of it yet)? It is the belief of many people that when a society begins tolerating – and then accepting – the practice of homosexuality, it’s the beginning of the end of that society.

If enough of them want to get together and create laws in an attempt to abate the demise of their society, then – court rulings notwithstanding – the Constitution doesn’t prohibit that any more than it prohibits states from outlawing abortion. There’s your precious REASON, whether you realize it or not.

Yeah, you heard me right on the abortion thing. The courts, not the Constitution, decided to impose the Roe v Wade prohibitions on the states because….well, because they felt like it; and they’re already attempting to do it again on the gay marriage issue. That does not, however, make it so in the Constitution.

Just because you believe the government shouldn’t be granted certain powers to restrict behavior inconsistent with societally recognized norms doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be so. The government is, after all, the people – at least for now. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, we have a republic….IF we can keep it.

Either way, I wont respond to any more of your senseless commentary unless you characterize my positions accurately before you attack them.

Any law without any rational basis is impermissible, regardless of its effect. It just so happens that the effects of laws tend to motivate people affected to bring suits challenging their Constitutionality. Past performance is no indication of future results, friend.