In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

wmou Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:31 PM
The first amendment forbids the government from interfering with our religious liberty. The govt should not interfere with marriage in any way, including recognition. If states want to have domestic or civil contracts, then they should be available to all. We all have a 1st amendment right to define marriage for ourselves.
wmou Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:43 PM
"Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did."
Typical liberal view of the constitution. Congress has the power because congress took it, now shut up and obey.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:46 PM
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: Oct 30, 2012 3:46 PM
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.
wmou Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:30 PM
OK I read it again and the words did not change.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Marriage is a religious institution therefore it is a matter of our personal religious beliefs and the govt cannot interfere. The govt should not be telling us what to believe.
InsightingTruth Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:38 PM
wmou:
You are correct. How do you propose to convince the gays and religionists to accept such an intellectually awkward (from their respective perceptions) stance on the issue?
David700 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:36 PM
You need to actually read the Constitution. Then get back to me.

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...