Posted on 3 Comments

Adding a definition of marriage to the state constitution is stupid

For those of you about to vote to add the definition of marriage as "a man and a woman" should look at these other marriage situations from culture and history.

As you vote about making changes to your state’s constitution, you should consider the definition of constitution:

constitution – The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.

Having considered the definition, ask yourself does defining marriage within the constitution have anything whatsoever to do with the "nature, function or limits" of our government? Of course not! It has to do with trying to force your moral beliefs on others. Government has no business trying to legislate morals! As you place your vote, recognize that your decisions today determine the future of our country. Are you making decisions that keep this country a free, democratic society or are you making decisions that move us toward an autocratic, Orwellian society?

3 thoughts on “Adding a definition of marriage to the state constitution is stupid

  1. How dare you muddy a “religious crusade” to “protect the santity of marriage” with something as trivial and inconsequential as logic and facts! Those silly things would only serve to confuse people.

    What next? Are you going to try and suggest that g_d didn’t allow 9/11 to happen because he hates gays? Why do you hate America? The nerve of you. 😉

  2. Very good! I needed a laugh this morning.

  3. Coretta Scott King said “banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing.” But what would she know about civil rights?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.