HOORAY! Maybe now we can begin to stop the last greatest human rights violation of our time in the United States!

If I ever get divorced from my husband, I will marry a woman! Yes I will!

How DARE the government tell me who I can or can't marry (as long as it's consenting adult!)

I knew it was WRONG to deny Gay people the right to get married when I was four years old! I wanted to marry my best friend Kristin and my mom said I couldn't because two girls could not get married and I was like "WHAT?!?!?! WHY NOT?????????? WTF???"

GAY MARRIAGE NOW!!!

Gadgetlady guess you missed the part that said you don't have to answer my question about my relationship. Don't really care what anyone else says about it. It was meant as a rhetorical question.

Gadgetlady guess you missed the part that said you don't have to answer my question about my relationship. Don't really care what anyone else says about it. It was meant as a rhetorical question.

Sorry! I saw that you said I (or whoever you were talking to) didn't have to answer, but I didn't think that meant you didn't WANT an answer. I just thought it meant someone didn't need to feel compelled to answer if they were uncomfortable with the question. I guess if you had said "Please don't answer; I don't care" instead of "You don't have to answer that you know", I would have gotten the message.

I am so glad to see so many logical thinking people here.

Hooray New Jersey!

Everyone has the right to be happy and live their life with someone they love. Life is too short to spend it passing judgement.

In response to your statement of separation of church and state not being in the constitution, that is correct but here is a statement from a site I just read that speaks volumes of what the founding fathers intentions were regarding that issue. I will post a short excerpt then give the link for anyone to read further. LOTS of good info there.

The framers were the very people who established the separation of Church and State, and not only that, but led the Western world by being the first to do so. The separation of Church and State was central to the framing of the Constitution in fact, a document that is purely secular. The founders chose a secular national motto and they wrote frequently about the need for separation of Church and State - as Thomas Jefferson put it: a "wall of separation;" as James Madison put it: a "perfect separation."

Here is the linK:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

Right back at 'ya:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

And one more thing I found as well on this issue.

Quote:

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This is a direct reference to the official "established" Church of England of Great Britain. In addition, Article VI states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

In fact, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution there were actually remarkably few devout religious men. Only one signatory was a former member of the clergy, and even he had given up that profession 20 years before to become a government administrator. The colected writings of most of America's Founding Fathers show that these were men who were far more concerned with secular pursuits, than religious ones. Most were worldly, well-eductated men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists.

The model they chose for American government came not from the Puritans, but from the example of the (pagan) ancient Romans & Greeks. The ideas of the Constitution's framers on civil liberties and human rights come primarily from Enlightenment-era English and French philosophers of the 1600s and 1700s (many of whom were well-known religious skeptics). The American Constitution was drafted mostly by colonial attorneys trained in the British legal system. The Bill of Rights comes from English Law, not from Biblical law. UnQuote

Here is the link to read for yourselves if you are so inclined;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Origins_of_the_phrase

Right back at 'ya:

AND? I am not bashing Christianity. I am one. LOL!! All I am saying is the Government has no business telling me or anyone else what the definition of marriage is and it certainly has NO business making a law to go along with that definition.

It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

So you're OK with legal polygamy, allowing sisters and brothers to marry each other, and legally recognizing as a married couple the woman and dolphin?

That would mean I am judging someone. Christians don't and shouldn't do that. RIGHT?

Wikipedia is not known as an arbiter of truth, especially since the general public and add and alter the definitions it contains!

This time I will do a cut and paste from http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html:

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers

by # of Founding Fathers and % of Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%

Presbyterian 30 18.6%

Congregationalist 27 16.8%

Quaker 7 4.3%

Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%

Lutheran 5 3.1%

Catholic 3 1.9%

Huguenot 3 1.9%

Unitarian 3 1.9%

Methodist 2 1.2%

Calvinist 1 0.6%

TOTAL 204

I have a degree in Political Science and could pick apart the Wikipedia "information" ad infinitum. But I choose to focus only on this:

"Most were worldly, well-eductated men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists."

How obnoxious!!!!! Like being a Christian or a religious person and being well-educated, a lawyer, a businessman, a solder, a diplomat or [gasp] even a SCIENTIST are mutually exclusive? What a crock. This sentence alone should tell you something about the agenda of the writer(s).

That would mean I am judging someone. Christians don't and shouldn't do that. RIGHT?

So to directly answer the question, you believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to human beings partnered with animals?

I'm not asking if you JUDGE them. I'm asking if you would bestow on them the legal right to marry.

So to directly answer the question, you believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to human beings partnered with animals?

I'm not asking if you JUDGE them. I'm asking if you would bestow on them the legal right to marry.

I am not the one making the law now am I? What purpose would it serve for me to answer that question? Besides you did not read and comprehend the statement I made regarding this issue.

Here let me restate it here; It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am not the one making the law now am I? What purpose would it serve for me to answer that question?

Because we live in a democracy.

Besides you did not read and comprehend the statement I made regarding this issue.

Here let me restate it here; It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

So your answer to my question, that you would approve of the legal marrying of brothers and sisters, of polygamy, and of people marrying animals, is yes? I'm just trying to get a yes or no. So far no one has given me a straight yes on that answer.

I don't believe in marrying animals, only because they don't pay taxes.

That is what the legal definition of marriage entails. Tax breaks and property law. So if we are talking marriage as recognition of legitimate households I would say that sibs could "unionize civilly" and be entitled to the same privileges of family that are granted straight couples and with luck and time same sex couples.

Marriage is a religious term and has become outmoded in the law. Churches have the ability do discriminate; the constitution should not.

Please forgive the "butter-inner".