Washington
Times: In a 6-1 decision, the court rejected arguments that the
November ballot measure amending the state constitution to state
that marriage is the union of one man and one woman violated the
"inalienable" rights of same-sex couples to marry. The justices,
however, did let stand the same-sex marriages performed before the
initiative's passage.
Commentary: Because our nation has a
government that is of the people and because our government
recognizes marriage, recognizing homosexual "unions" as marriages,
involves all the citizens in the lie.
Personally, I believe
that our government should just get out of the business of marriage.
Marriage is a biblical thing and should stay there.
The
homosexuals that are pushing for our government to recognize their
"unions" as "Marriages," would be disarmed if our government did not
recognize any.
I, personally, do not need my
government to recognize my marriage.
You may ask, what about
our taxes, filing jointly. You may ask what about health insurance
and death benefits.
If our government did not recognize any marriages, then it would
have to come up with another way to file jointly, and insurance
companies would have to come up with something else, too.
To
me the answer is easy. Let everyone choose one adult that they live
with, for most of the year. It is that simple. How hard is that?
Think about the two little old ladies, who are sisters, shouldn't
they be able to file jointly and get benifits and not pay an
inheritance tax, when one dies?
Yes,
I really should go to Washington. Sometimes, the answer is so
simple.
And for the record, all nasty behavior in public
should be illegal to begin with. Such would end the disgusting
things that homosexuals do in the streets.
Debra J.M.
Smith
