I was just watching the O’Reilly report with E.D. Hill and Margaret Hoover and they were both inisting that homosexual marriage was a human right, and an individual right. But, the people promoting homosexual marriage and insisting it is a right, never present an historical case wherein that right has ever been self-evident or practiced.

There is no right to heterosexual marriage, it is a privilege granted by the State, in our country this is based on Judeo-Christian moral-social values and in the best interest of the State to maintain the integrity of the family, also having overwhelming historical precedent. There is absolutely no right to homosexual marriage, but if it is established by our modern society as a right, then there is absolutely no possible basis upon which polygamous marriages can be denied that same right, or host of other, often bizarre marriage relationships.

According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format (Montague, p. 240). The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. Since every effect must have an adequate cause, there must be some reasonable explanation for this feature of global society. Actually, there are but two logical possibilities. Marriage either is of supernatural origin, or it had a naturalistic beginning; but a naturalistic beginning cannot be much advanced when not all of nature is monagamous and is in fact quite promiscuous, as would be homosexual marriages.

Marriage accommodates our social needs, marriage provides the means for the safe gratification of sexual desire, heterosexual marriage provides for procreation, a home sanctified by marriage affords the ideal environment for the rearing of children. The marriage relationship is the “cement” that binds society together. Professor Mark McVann describes the family arrangement as “the foundation of society itself.” When family life unravels, national devastation is certain to follow eventually.

If any of you want to argue for homosexual marriage, in my opinion it can never be established as a civil right, and it will be a conscious perversion of what marriage has been in virtually every society, geographical setting and time in history.

the issue is one to be settled by the elected leadership of the various states and not the President.

Ah, but it already has, when President Clinton signed the “defense of marriage” act into law.

Gay people can vote if they are not felons. California’s citizens will have a chance to rectify their perverted court decision soon. Then the power will be back with the people.

Zsa Zsa: That is what is wrong with the world, I mean giving the women the vote. Who messed around with the really great idea of keeping women in the kitchen, barefoot, ignorant and pregnant? People have to keep messing around with a good thing until they screw it all up!

That bad joke aside my dear friend, the problem with what Ellen said is that marriage is not a right comparable to voting. Homosexuals ARE NOT denied the right to vote! They are not denied other Civil Rights granted to both genders and/or people of color, in fact they are granted special Civil Rights which are themselves, if not unconstitutional, they are certainly extra-constitutional. Marrige is a privilege, we have discussed that ad naseum, it is something that the state has an overwhelming need to restrict to a man and woman. Her arguments were based on false equivalence and were wholly emotion based, which while understandable, is not the basis for good law and more often than not results in laws not healthful for society.

If the people of a particular state decide to vote in favor of gay marriage, will those of you currently speaking out against the California Supreme Court’s decision go along with the people’s decision (for that state, at least)? And what if that happens in other states?

I would still oppose it on the grounds of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states. In other words, these states by their acts could force other non-homosexual marriage states to recognize and grant full legal and economic rights to homosexuals married outside their state.

you can discuss that ad naseum all you want, but I’m not sure I’ll ever get why the state has an “overwhelming need” to restrict marriage–overwhelming, really?

Doesn’t that mean you have a closed mind and are incapable of unemotional debate based on facts, as touching any issue?