I did not mention religion in my questions, but that for adding you hatred of religion.<quoted text>
The line is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.
OkaaaaaaaaayFor example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.
Why do you keep interjecting religion, when I did not.That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.
The will of the people was ignored, and the law is open to interpretation, and can be changed in one way or another.That is ultimately up to the will of the people, and the rule of law. Prop 8 was passed by a small margin, but was challenged on constitutional grounds, overturned but a stay put on the results.
Perhaps it would be.The situation is now reversed, put on a ballot again today Prop 8 would be overturned easily, and it is actually the courts that are the blocking point.
There is a difference between voicing support, and voting to support it.Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.
As in those states at constitutionally defined marriage as a union of a man and woman, in essence banning SSM and plural marriage?Not based on history, not based on tradition, not based on pseudo-science and the often misguided references here to evolution, or any ancient books, but by the rule of law, and ultimately the will of the people.
Will of the people and rule of law? So you agree with the people voting according to the rule of law to either maintain the conjugal definition of marriage, or redefine it?That is why even your most famous right win pundit has thrown in the towel on the issue.
All your concerns about Poly and Incest and so forth are at the same whim, the will of the people and the rule of law.
So it's possible that SSM will be the historical turning point in the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relation of husband and wife, and reduce it to nothing more than a life style choice, regardless of its effect on society. Yes? Marriage can me anything or nothing. Is that the ultimate goal of the SSM movement? If so, why bother having state sanctioned marriage at all? Who cares who marries who?I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.
PolyÖ probably at some point
IncestÖ doubtful in the foreseeable future
But it isnít up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.