I do believe that a gay couple who want to make a life long committment to one another ought to be afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities as a male-female couple. I think the term "marriage", however, ought to be reserved for a traditional union, as it has been since the beginning of human history.
The California decision allowing gay marriage will awaken Americans to the fact that a small, but extremely vocal minority was able to push it's agenda on the majority. I predict that it has become very apparent to most people now, why an ammendent to the constitution defining marriage as exclusively a union of one man and one woman is necessary.
I believe there are two reasons why this ammendment failed in Arizona the last time. The first being the homosexual propaganda machine did a very good job of convincing a lot of Arizonans that the ammendent was not necessary since gay marriage was already illegal in Arizona, and, secondly, the ammendment seemed to be purposely written in such a way as to be ambiguous and confusing to a lot of voters.
This time, there will be a clearer wording of the ammendment so there is no doubt of it's meaning. Also, It ought to be perfectly obvious to most voters why this ammendment is necessary, so that Arizona does not follow in the footsteps of California and allow an activist judge to circumvent the will of the great majority of the people .
1 comment:
Are you serious about what you are posting? You can have all the rights and responsibilites, just not the term. I don't understand. How does the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman infringe on the sanctity of your marriage? Seriously. I apologize, I did not spell check this post.
Post a Comment