President Obama has been all over on this issue, depending on whom he was addressing. I was okay when he said he did not agree with gay marriage himself but thought there should not be legislation against it. I notice he never says that any more. My biggest disappointment with him (and I actually voted for McCain) is that he seems very much a politician. No better and no worse than other politicians....but definitely a politician.

Said Fraulien: "My biggest disappointment with him (President Obama) is that he seems very much a politician." The poll numbers show that disappointment, too.
Mark Twain said quite perceptibly: "There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress." I would expand that to all of our elected officials and the cronies they appoint. And I would add this: love your country; but never trust the government. Hopefully, same sex marriage is never given constitutional status. If it is then there is no logical reason to deny polygamists status as well...then polyamorous relationships will be next, followed by really, really creepy stuff.

Quoth GP:"...the religious right wants to savage America's highest ideals..." Let's put it to a vote to our founding fathers since they articulated our highest ideals. All of you in favor of same sex marriage, raise your hands. Looking...Looking...Looking. Nope. Don't see any hands. Sorry, GP. I don't think there were any constitutional signers that were in favor of same sex marriage. So, I'm thinking they would say that not allowing same sex marriage doesn't violate any constitutional principle. So then, let's check all of recorded history. Nope. Don't find it there either. Seems like same sex marriage is pretty much a recent fringe innovation. And seems like the "religious right" are on the side of history, too. And, GP, nobody says you can't marry - it just has to be the right gender. Except in certain states. So, if you want to marry someone of the same gender, go there and get married to whomever you want to. I will send a gift. But apparently you think the constitution says and means whatever you think it says and means. But this is not Wonderland.

The arguement presented by Gregory sounds reasonable until you realize it is wrong starting with the use of gay. Gay is a person who is overly happy, it's a state of personality and has nothing to do with sex or the way of doing sex. Homosexual is a person who does sex with the same gender. The wrong definitions are given. The United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. "We the people..." means just that, the people rule, not kings, queens, politicians, judges, parties, etc. but the people and if the people say they want something this way or that way, the majority is going to rule just by the law of mathematics. Abortion is a good example. The murder of the unborn hasn't been voted on by the people but put into effect by legislature. We, all of us, are at one time or another in the minority, none of us are always in the majority, this isn't socialism yet where everyone is to be on an equal basis usually meaning economically equal. When the word equal and rights are used, it means we are born in the status of having the ability to accomplish, move up and down the ladder unlike in other countries where the status you are born at means you stay in the manor or you're outside the manor and you can't change your status. Otherwise you're born poor you stay poor, you're born rich, you stay rich. It's still like that in many countries of today. The guarantee of the right to disagree politically with anyone in power is the biggee equal right, witness the difference between Iraq and the U.S. You also have the equal right of facing your accuser in a court judged by your peers. This is not an equal right in other countries. Tn them, you have to prove you are innocent as you are assumned to be guilty. Equal rights in our Constitution has nothing to do with who can be married. It means equal rights before the law if you are arrested. You have a right to an attorney paid for by the government. Other countries women can't even appear in court if they are on trial, only men can. Really, don't milk our equal rights so low that they are meant for something as redefining marriage when equal rights are meant for much more life and death situations which our forefathers knew only too well. They did not have their minds on redefining marriage, they had their minds on rights under the law being the same for the rich man and the poor man and the right for free speech against the ruler(s). The Constitution came out of a war, a Revolution, not the changing of English words for the convenience of a few.

GP: Re: Anna's quote. Well, there you are, GP. Your approach to interpreting the constitution is similar to the Red Queen's approach to defining words: "A word means whatever I want it to mean." But this isn't Wonderland.

GP et al: Just several questions - no satire, sarcasm, etc. intended:
1. If same sex marriage is ratified, shouldn't by logical necessity polygomy be allowed? Polyamorous marriage? Marriage of people and animals?
2. Would the term civil unions satisfy the gay community just as well as the term marriage? (see, I didn't use the word homosexual because you said that word was offensive - I didn't know that until now)But I don't see the difference between civil unions and marriage.
3. What would the legal ramifications be if same sex marriage was ratified? In other words, what would legally happen to traditional Christians who preach against the gay lifestyle? Several years ago a Pentecostal preacher in Sweden was jailed for hate speech - he preached against homosexual (their word) behavior.

If a man wants to marry his Lassie - I say go right ahead as long as he can get Lassie to consent to the union.

Polygamous relationships were practiced for quite sometime. In some cultures they still are today and these cultures are very anti-homosexual to the point of death. I really don't see the correlation.

If civil unions conveyed the exact same rights as marriages do, then there's no issue. Currently such laws are however creating second class peoples and that's not what our constitution allows.

Allowing gay marriages would have no impact on what a church wants to preach. A church is impacted only on discrimination issues. A church cannot practice discrimination and still expect to have tax exempt status. This would not be fair would it? How do you justify a church discriminating against people whose taxes it gets?

Churches preach about adultery (well very rarely, but they still do.) They will still be free to preach about gay marriages as well.

And no such event of a Swedish pastor being jailed for preaching about homosexuality actually occured.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/29/5506

Is just one link that I found explaining exactly what transpired.

The law states : No religion will be required to change its religious policies with regards to same sex couples and no officials will be required to solemize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs