Auldsoul- Now that is so sweet. The secret anniversary.
Actually, I do understand the Federal Government's interest. I just don't think the Federal Government should be in the business of moralizing its citizenry.
Right. Because what is moral here is not moral elsewhere. Who sets up the standards? We were reading tonight how here in TX it was just overturned in 2002 the case of homosexual acts being illegal in ones own home. So who actually made the moral call there? Just because it may be two men, then an act of sex is illegal...but if a man and woman do the same thing...It is ok. That makes no damn sense to me.
Then too, what is deemed moral elsewhere is deemed unacceptable here. So does geographic location on the planet entail what constitutes morality? It is kind of nonsense how this government can control the well being or not of a persons estate (in regards to marriage of gay and lesbians) due to sexual preferences. To be gay and have limited rights to how you can use benefits and moneys you have earned, the same as the rest does not seem fair. Health insurance will pay for myself and a husband and as many kids as I should so want…but if I were in love with a woman….well even if I never added another person but one onto the plan, it would be unacceptable. It is odd to me a bit, gay marriage, but I have seen many couples who are closer than most straight couples I know. It is not good for populating the planet…but I think the rest of us have it under control. Life will find a way to continue whether a gay couple is married or not. It does not change the fact that there have always been such couples throughout history. People are just more open about it now.