The marriage question deserves closer examination. It is an arrangement that has come down through the ages, and is both sacred and secular in nature, providing an unit that perpetuates the race and nurtures children. Marriage has included both monogamy and polygamy in various cultures but has not included homosexual unions. It seems unfair not to allow homosexuals to claim the title, "Married." It's probable that if gays set a precedent by legalizing their marriages, then polygamists are sure to follow, since they too will want equal treatment. Following this, NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) will claim equal rights to marry consenting boys, a goal they have been working for years to achieve. Then we have groups who want to marry, or whatever, since all are due equal treatment under the law. What is equal treatment? Should men share the women's locker room? Should NASA make no rules concerning who is eligible to be an astronaut? Must women only be allowed to bear children, or can men claim that right and ask the government to give them a sex change? In other words, there are differences here that must be addressed. It may be the term "marriage" that is at the core of the discussion. It is basically a historic and religious term that has applied only to the union of male and female, and implies that it is "sanctioned by God." Homosexual unions have generally not been sanctioned by God, and perhaps the desire to legalize gay marriage has been a desire to have an union blessed by God, or at least by society. There is no problem with having a civil union for homosexual partners or with having legal arrangements and benefits for such an union. But to make it a religious rite by calling it marriage will place all unions in the same stew along with whatever other arrangements may develop, which, in the end, may include everybody and obliterate the concept of the nuclear family. Marriage will disintegrate altogether, since it will be unnecessary. Thus it seems prudent to hang on to the traditional family unit, as it has always been the strength of any society. Historically, nations and cultures that have disregarded the family unit have destroyed themselves from within. Now it looks like we may be doing the same. This is nothing more than a political movement ploy among others to brainwash the nation into supporting/accepting New World Order agenda as part of their whole plans for population control.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.
.._...|..__________ __________, , )
....../ `---___________---- _____|] ......
...../_==o;;;;;;;;__ _____.:/
.....), ---.(_(__) /
....// (..) ), ----"
...//___//
..//___// Put This On Your Page If You
.//___// Support Gun Ownership & Safety

I AM CLINGING TO MY GUNS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND TO PRESERVE OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION!!

SIGNS SAY NATION AT RISK: Thomas Jefferson warned that destruction of American government would come about by "...consolidation (centralization) first, then corruption, its necessary consequence." We must understand certain principles about our country and our freedoms -- or we could lose both. 1) A bill that keeps reappearing in Congress would require, among other things, universal gun registration, restrictions on accessibility, home inspections, mental exams and prohibitive fees and penalties (a fee for gun ownership is like a poll tax). These infringements on gun ownership are proposed in defiance of 2nd and 4th Amendments. 2) U.S. Supreme Court contradicted 5th Amendment by ruling that governments may force private property to be sold to other private entities, rather than be used for strictly public purposes. 3) 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is limited to only the powers delegated to it; these do not include directing an education system, ownership of commercial enterprises, managing health care, etc. Taking over private sector banks and interfering with car companies, including disbanding car dealerships, was done in defiance of both 10th and 14th Amendments. 4) Hate crime laws impose enhanced penalties in favor of select group of people -- and against selected criminals, not because of their intent to do harm, but because of their reasons for the crime. This ignores 14th Amendment's requirement for equal treatment under the law. 5) Under 1st Amendment, citizens may support candidates and causes of their choice, even by contributing financially in any amount. However, organizations, corporations, unions, etc. represent people who may hold diverse opinions and should not be permitted to make political donations on behalf of their members. Thus 1st Amendment is twice breached by unconstitutional campaign laws. Don't be fooled by technical interpretations -- such as the twisting of meaning in 1st Amendment that resulted in the banning of religious speech and symbols in public places. Always go by original intent, as that is the source of particular freedom in question.

Came from a hunting/fishing family...lived out in the country most of my life and lovin' it. Pretty traditional with family values, a believer of Christ, and an American Patriot at heart.