In response to:

Redefining Marriage Sign of a Lost Society

Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 10:11 AM
Skywalker58, here's an honest answer to your questions. On multiple partners, so long as the partners are consenting adults, ain't nobody's business what they do. Children and animals, however, do not have the ability to lawful assent, and hence cannot marry adult humans. Hope this clears things up for you. Regarding the assertion that gay rights activists want "acceptance", the proper response is: "so what?" If they want to legally establish a household relationship, and call it marriage, you are free to either accept it, or not accept it. In a free society, you condemn it to the hills. But you cannot interfere with their basic right of contract.

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...