To which I ask:
Did any of the "Gay Marriage" crowd ever consider why there is the institution of marriage between one man and one woman?
Now that "Gay Marriage" is the 'law of the land', by fiat of 5 robed rulers, what of the polygamy and polyandry crews? What of those who wish to marry their horse, their cow, their dog, or their favorite sheep? Why should they be denied 'marriage to the one they love'? Is that FAIR?
Personally, I have no problem with pairings of any sort but feel that there IS a reason for the original version of 'marriage' though beyond the trio of self-help partnership through life, raising a family and lineage recording, and religious aspects along with government interest in peaceful co-existence... Make up your own.
I don't claim to know the answer, but know that changing something that dates back thousands of years(?) willy-nilly at the behest of the Hollywood know-nothings is a fools errand. /rant off
Where, in the constitution, is the gov't given the specific authority to have any say about marriage?
The first person to say the *general welfare clause* gets punched right in the face.
Well, 'sniper, why in H did the SCOTUS robed rulers stick their nose into a state discussion?
The FedGov has stuck their nose under the rug in the area of taxation and inheritance. Maybe they should sneak out...
To answer my own question, I think it is the alphabet soup of sexual flavors that instigated the whole thing in their search to be 'the same' as a married couple, I assume. At least in the eyes of some levels of government, if not some of organized religion.
The wisest of reformers will approach the gate, produce a key, unlock the gate and throw it open. Recognizing that the gate may very well serve a purpose again in the future even if that purpose is simply to stand as a memorial to the folly of those that erected it in the first place.