[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, there is a huge gulf between the two sides of this argument. I think my main disagreement with the Groups who want an amendment is this-
Why do you get to define marrige? Would it be right for me to define marrige for you? Obviously not, so why do you get to define it for me? Statements like this
"But government has no justification in changing the basic, most accepted definition of marriage."
This is your opinion, not fact. Polygamy is just as old as monogomy, and many cultures throughout our history have celebrated it as much as monogomy is today. However this isn't (well it shouldn't be) an argument over which is better, it is about our government's role in our lives. The government has no buisness defining such private things as marrige, however, once they do so they must do so fairly and equally (according to our constitution). Why should marrige be an exception?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our society considers the ideal family to consist of a father, a mother, and children. Marriage is an institution designed to promote that ideal family structure.

What is happening in America today is the Gay community is trying to use marriage to promote a family structure that the rest of society feels is less than ideal. The rest of society is essentially saying that they will tolerate a gay family structure, but they will not allow the institution of marriage to be changed to promote it.

Id like to add that I think the gay community is wrong to single out christians. Its a much larger cross section of America that is opposed to changing marriage.

Stu