In response to:

Gay Marriage at the Ballot Box

Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:55 AM
Homos already HAVE -equal- right to marriage; they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person. That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years. This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1. Homos are seeking SPECIAL rights and the reordering of US society to suit their agenda and mental illness.
Science Avenger Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:36 PM
As surely has been pointed out before, the definition of marriage has NOT been one-man-one-woman for several thousand years. For most of human history, and in much of the world even now, marriage = "one man, several women".

As for the rest of your sophistry, the question is why marriage should cater to heterosexuals and be defined as "opposite sex".
Anominus Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:49 PM
Marriage caters to heterosexuals because it is only in heterosexual relationships that the nuclear family, the building block of society, is possible. It has been proven overwhelmingly to be the single best environment for both producing and providing for children. It provides natural, complementary, authority figures from each sex who can assist in the upbringing of the children and prepare them for their future social interaction while creating an example for the establishment of families. Homosexuality provides none of these benefits - why should marriage be changed to suit their aberrant behavior?
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 6:50 PM
Polygamy is just several marriages(all man-woman) running concurrently. Each wife marries the man,not each other.
It's still better for children than homo "marriage",because the kids still have a real mother and father,and benefit from the invaluable experiences of that.
Also,while one wife can be watching the kids,the other wives can be doing household chores or working outside the home,so there's extra income for the entire group,and the kids are always cared for,there's always a mom around. No wife gets burned out,because they can take turns watching the kids and doing housework.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:56 AM
Of course,some people IGNORE the second part of Article IV,sec 1;
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.

Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:56 AM
One might say "it's settled law."
ZealousConscript Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:47 PM
You know I'm pretty sure they used this logic in the 40's and 50's too. After all, blacks had the right to marry other black people right?
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 6:49 PM
it went right OVER your head;
"settled law" is straight from the DemocRATs. they coined the term.

SUPPORTERS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE have reason to cheer after last week's election. Supporters of democratic self-government, even those of us who oppose gay marriage, do too.

On Nov. 6, for the first time ever, voters in three states – Maine, Maryland, and Washington – redefined marriage by popular vote. In Minnesota, residents said no to a constitutional amendment enshrining the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There is no denying the significance of these results: Previously the issue had gone to the ballot in 32 states, and in all 32 same-sex marriage was defeated....