In response to:
Wow, so many awful points in one column. First of al, tradition meant that someone like the author was banned from marrying someone with different colored skin. That was tradition. Tradition once was she could not vote based on the color of her skin and her gender. Tradition in defense of injustice is absurd and a mockery of any rational policy. To compare marriage equality for gays with slavery just shows her delusion. Gays marrying does not put anyone in chains. The people don't have a right to see their sons, brothers and friends marry in a same sex marriage?
One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page – a place where conservatives usually turn for intellectual capital – saw this as cause for celebration.
According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”
In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not...
I don't have a problem with civil ceremonies, but that is not their goal.
How do you justify sodomy with your pal?
You sound like a failure as a man.