Politics

ScottyRo · 07-13-2004, 04:06 PM

When I mentioned child molesting above I was not trying to say that they are similar acts, but they are related in that many people feel that they are both immoral acts. Thus, I tried to make the point that if one of these \"immoral\" groups were to change the rules as they have always been, then the other should be able at some point to change it as well.

The definition of marriage is simple. So simple that Webster\'s missed it because he (they) didn\'t feel the need to define it fully. This planet has thousands of years of \"marriage\" history and in none of it that I know of has there ever before been a marriage that included two people of the same sex. Further, Louisiana in its civil code defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Certainly, there could be some obscure homosexual tribe out there on some other continent, but I don\'t think that changes anything.

I also think that it would be nice if we could handle this issue on a state level. Unfortunately, we cannot let each state handle this issue because of the \"full faith and credit\" clause. Again, Louisiana\'s civil code states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus, if Mississippi were to allow gay marriages then Louisiana would not have a choice, but to do so or else defy the US Constitution. In the end it would be MS changing the laws of LA by proxy.

07-13-2004, 04:06 PM	#11
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics When I mentioned child molesting above I was not trying to say that they are similar acts, but they are related in that many people feel that they are both immoral acts. Thus, I tried to make the point that if one of these \"immoral\" groups were to change the rules as they have always been, then the other should be able at some point to change it as well. The definition of marriage is simple. So simple that Webster\'s missed it because he (they) didn\'t feel the need to define it fully. This planet has thousands of years of \"marriage\" history and in none of it that I know of has there ever before been a marriage that included two people of the same sex. Further, Louisiana in its civil code defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Certainly, there could be some obscure homosexual tribe out there on some other continent, but I don\'t think that changes anything. I also think that it would be nice if we could handle this issue on a state level. Unfortunately, we cannot let each state handle this issue because of the \"full faith and credit\" clause. Again, Louisiana\'s civil code states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus, if Mississippi were to allow gay marriages then Louisiana would not have a choice, but to do so or else defy the US Constitution. In the end it would be MS changing the laws of LA by proxy.