From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM

It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something.

Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like MOVE ON.ORG(Tax free status?) or ACORN(--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some ACQUIRED characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry AND CONCEIVE CHILDREN whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot. "
CIVIL UNIONS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable ROOM MATES would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew.

Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe. LIKE CIVIL CORPORATIONS!

Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural. WORKS BOTH WAYS!

YES AMOS, IT IS ABOUT OVERTURNING THE MAJORITY RULE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS...AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS ABOUT MARRIAGE, OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT, DOES NOT ALTER, OR CHANGE THAT FACT!!!!!