In response to:

To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage

Pete_O_Behr Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:58 AM
So should we outlaw any heterosexual union that cannot result in reproduction? Perhaps men and women should have to get fertility tests when they apply for a license. And sorry to anyone who can't; marriage, afterall, is JUST about making kids. But then how do we ensure that all those healthy, straight married couples actually fulfill their duties? The only answer I see is some kind of child mandate. If the couple doesn't have a kid within 3 years, we can just dissolve their union, because they were just abusing it anyway.
DCM in FL Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 7:31 AM
"So should we outlaw any heterosexual union that cannot result in reproduction?" -- Strawman argument. The inherent inability to produce children is just one of the more obvious of the many ways a same-sex union is unequal to a real marriage.

Being married & having kids is like having a car & using it to drive to work. Being married & not having kids is like having a car & driving it only for recreation. Having homosexual relationships is like having a car & driving on the wrong side of the road!

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become...