Quote:
But, like you said, it's not practical to seperate them in the near term and when push comes to shove I will vote my beliefs which are driven by fairness to all.
Yes, when push comes to shove, we all vote our beliefs. That's how the system was set up, and I don't personally believe that doing so is bigotry. Our beliefs have consequences, and if enough people believe the wrong/right thing, that is what is going to happen.

Quote:
I absolutely believe poligamy should be legal if all parties are consenting. And, yes, I believe we are bigots if we don't extend legal rights to those who choose that life.
Well, were not talking about making poligamy legal here (is it illegal?) We're talking about re-defining marriage to include more than two people. Don't know what effect that would have on our tax code, but it seems to me this would not be an easy change to make and apply the law fairly.

And then, once marriage can be definined so flexibly where basically any relationship can be considered a marriage, how to you regulate it? What if two rommates decide to get "married" in order to get a tax break. What about a whole fraternity? The problem with this is that the idea of state sanctioned marriage starts really falling apart because it was never designed to fit these kinds of structures.

But let me be completely clear on this- people can do what they want and I'm not going to stand in their way. People can get married and live together in whatever configuration they feel fits. It's when the state gets invovled and starts sanctioning what is and what isn't marriage that I have a problem.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.