Video/newstory from response to activist federal judge attempting to strike down a state constitutional amendment passed by over 7 million voters in California.
Click here for the video. http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/top_stories/California-Gay-arriage-Debate-20100805-ktbcw
You’ll hear my opponent say that “love is what makes a marriage, not a legal definition…”
Wow. There is the key admission there by this attorney. If people simply love each other, the state must, is forced to recognize and approve their marriage. So no laws against polygamy or incest and so on, as we should not have any control over who can get married, if people simply love each other. Right? This seems to be the view of the homosexual community, or at least their supporter in this debate.
And here in lies the problem, you start changing and opening up the definition of marriage, away from the current and widely accepted definition of -one man, one woman- you have many other people and scenarios where people are going to want to have their “rights” protected in their choice of how they decide to define marriage.