Journal YTYTYTYTYTY's Journal: Lets protect marriage by all means 1
Well, that's the most specious argument for a constitutional amendment I've heard yet. What? You ask.. The argument that without a constitutional amendment declaring that any marriage must be between a man and a woman thus preventing gay couples from marrying we will be faced with a wave of new types of marriage such as polygamous marriages and group marriages. If the want to defend marriages from group and polygamous marriages then draft a constitutional amendment to ban all forms of marriage but those between two, repeat TWO human beings. Otherwise don't we risk a wave of men and women marrying sheep and horses and pigs and such things bestial not to mention their vibrators and rubber dolls as well? No, gay marriage is not what we need to ban. Not two loving human beings bonding themselves one to the other. If defense of marriage is what is the goal why not make adultery a felony? Punishable by twenty years at hard labor. Adultery seems to be the real threat to marriage. I'm sure there are others but that seems to be the major cause of marital failure. As a matter of interest though, exactly what business of government is it to regulate marriage when until recently it was an institution of religion? Isn't that where that old idea of separation of church and state should come into play?? After all, isn't marriage an historically religious function???
If we're going to do it.... (Score:2)
My proposed 28th amendment to the US Constitution.
Amendment XXVIII Marriage shall be defined only as a union between a Republican man and a Republican woman for the purpose of producing Republican children and/or reducing the Capital gains tax. Amen.
Let's get it all in there if we're going to do this thing..