Sorry, I subscribe to the concept that a marriage is to be between a man and a woman. You look at nature, and that’s just what you come away with. I think that’s what Pennsylvania’s law does. It’s not bigotry, it just defines what marriage is. States are entitled to do that. We are a nation of laws and definitions. We’ve had it right for centuries, I can’t understand how logic has become so twisted.
If the Supreme Court ruled that DOMA overstepped the federal government’s authority, that states alone could define marriage, then it is saying that Pennsylvania has the right to define marriage as it sees right or purposeful. As for the ACLU suit and its contention that, “ law cannot….give effect to private biases.” What is the reasoning behind any law, except a collection of “private biases”?
I don’t think marriage is a (federal) constitutional right; remember, states can define marriage. I think most people and most states do have it right. It’s really pretty simple, a marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Let’s not try to twist it any further.
Recent Comments
If the Supreme Court ruled that DOMA overstepped the federal government’s authority, that states alone could define marriage, then it is saying that Pennsylvania has the right to define marriage as it sees right or purposeful. As for the ACLU suit and its contention that, “ law cannot….give effect to private biases.” What is the reasoning behind any law, except a collection of “private biases”?
I don’t think marriage is a (federal) constitutional right; remember, states can define marriage. I think most people and most states do have it right. It’s really pretty simple, a marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Let’s not try to twist it any further.