Elonka wrote:
] There was a reality TV show on a year or so ago, called
] "Married by America".

For the record, I hated that show, because I felt it cheapened a very serious matter. I'm glad to hear that no one actually went through with it.

] Different couples were brought together
] basically by audience vote, and if they had chemistry, were
] given the opportunity to marry on the show. One or two of the
] couples *did* have great chemistry, but every single one of
] them, when it got to the point of saying, "I do," declined.
] They said that marriage was too important a decision to be
] made lightly. That the institution of marriage was sacred to
] them, and they wouldn't cheapen it by going through with it in
] a frivolous manner.
]
] The concept of marriage isn't just about Christianity or
] religion or conservative politics -- marriage is pretty much
] as intense a personal decision as a human being can make, and
] if many people want to defend the sanctity of that concept, I
] can't blame them.

Actually, this is just exactly my point. If marriage is such a personal decision then why do people feel that they've the right to impose their views upon someone else's marriage. If America can't marry a couple, then how can America prevent a couple from getting married. My point is that it isn't any of America's business. Its a personal decision that is best made between the individuals involved and their church.

] Battles over wills and death benefits? It's not just about
] letting a gay man put his partner on his health insurance
] policy, there's a whole slew of legal battles that would be
] opened up by allowing gay marriages.

Why should these questions be resolved any differently then for any other kind of couple. The only difference that I can see relates to child support, in that homosexual couples cannot produce offspring.

RE: The Values-Vote Myth