ikol

Yeah. If there are children or coercion involved, then the government should intervene.

I disagree.

This is epic.

Ok, but what I advocated was completely doing away with the term marriage and replacing it with civil union (for all couples/multiples, gay, straight, etc.), so there's no inequality there. If there are rights conferred by the federal government relating to marriage, then they should apply to civil unions.

Any state run by me would have civil unions for anyone that wants them. If others don't want them, that kinda goes with the whole states' rights thing.

I lean more towards states rights. I definitely don't think there should be any sort of constitutional amendment related to marriage.

I'll refer to it as marriage, but I won't give a damn what the government calls it.

That's exactly what I was advocating. The government should only be concerned with protecting rights, not playing word games.

Why are you so attached to the word marriage?

No... The government can handle the legal aspects without calling it marriage. The government could authorize civil unions, union contracts (whatever you want to call it) and leave marriage to private citizens. That way the government is completely neutral on the issue and individual rights are protected. And I'm not so sure that the government's role should be to prevent polygamy and incest.

No, the government gives me the heebie-jeebies.

The government should have nothing to due with marriage whether it's straight, gay, polygamous, etc.

Happy Birthday!

Cadaver Cowboys

Earth Day has turned into Earth Month.

But it's different when Democrats do it. For example, global warming really is the apocalypse.

Happy Birthday, Graham!

Dysmenorrhea

I'm Not There Walk Hard Walk Hard was easier to follow.

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!