Let me ask you something curious george, are you in love and are you loved?
Because once you are able to love someone, then it is a beautiful story that starts, like another life!!!!!
sophie and special kiss to my Hillary and Jack (see you at My wedding!)

Indeed, why not three people, or ten people, or a person and his dog? Would you have any objection to that? If not, why not? What is the basis for your belief that only two people should be married? Are you Mormophobic?

And don't throw out the 3/5 canard. As you know, that was only to prevent the South from having more power, based upon counting blacks in their census. It was inserted by anti-slavery, not pro-slavery forces. In any event, no one is suggesting that homosexuals are 3/5 of a person.

The constitution does not "evolve," since it is not a biological organism. However, it can be amended. But even then, there is no basis for redefining a word, marriage, which refers to the unique spritual union of male and female. That's what it means. Why not invent a new word for homosexual unions, rather than confusing the issue?

Beyond that, the marriage will be the foundation of our family. For us, that family will (hopefully) include children. By taking the step to marry, we will be showing our children that we are committed to being together, and raising a family.

To that end, why shouldn't two people of the same sex make this commitment, and raise a family together? In my view, the more people there are to provide love to children, to be strong role models for them, etc., the better off the children will be. So, if two people of the same sex are able to provide a good, strong, loving home, who are any of us to stand in their way?

The Constitution stated very clearly that African-Americans should be counted as 3/5 of a person. Is there anyone who would favor this viewpoint today??? Clearly, the Constitution, and it's meaning, evolves over time. Hopefully, our society will evolve in a similar fashion.

For starters,

1. Defeating the global jihad.
2. Breaking the ruinous stranglehold leftists have had on the educational establishment for the past 50 years, and introducing choice into the system.
3. Reducing the size of government and keeping taxes low, which historically helps "the little guy" much more than any government handout.
4. Leaving the U.N. — which is a gang of thugs, tyrants and vicious anti-Semites — and begin a new United Democracies.
5. Confirming judges who will interpret the Constitution rather than making up laws.
6. Tort reform: loser pays.
7. Social security reform, which must begin with choice, i.e., privatization.

I wonder, if you would – What issues trouble you the most (locally, nationally, and/or internationally)? And what strides in civilization do you see that could use more attention?

Communication is inspiration,
Hillary

In any event, opposition to the redefinition of marriage has nothing to do with being critical of the "homosexual lifestyle," any more than your opposition to traditional marriage presumably has to do with being critical of the "heterosexual lifestyle." Marriage is a natural right that is to be protected by government, not something invented or to be redefined by big government and forced upon an unwilling population. There are plenty of homosexuals who are against the redefinition of marriage. It has nothing to do with animus toward homosexuals, but what is best for society.

Jack and I were talking about our personal lives, as I am getting married soon, which made the subject natural to discuss. The "national conversation" question is my (somewhat off topic) attempt to understand the perspective of people who may put this type of discussion ahead of others in the public debate.

The idea here is for people share differing ideas, with a goal of consideration, not conversion or condemnation.

Communication is inspiration,

Hillary

That is a non-sequitur. If the Constitution has clauses to change it, why ignore them?

>>What is the downside of letting two people of the same sex marry?

That would require a book-length response, as the reasons are many. Of course there are spiritual reasons, but also psychological and anthropological ones. In any event, you are the one calling for radical change, so it is incumbent upon you to make your case, not the other way around.

"Why does the national conversation revolve around these divisive issues, "

You brought it up. I would be happy to drop the issue of redifining marriage, and leave marriage as it is and has always been.

"when we could all be talking about the state of schools, roads and fundamental infrastructure?"

We can talk about both. But again, if you feel there are more important issues, you should drop your focus on moral issues.

"I wondered if the amount of attention placed, on an issue that is quite unlikely to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, is a good use of our collective time."

Again, you brought it up.

"Why can’t we table these “moral” issues until we have our country’s facilities sound?"

First of all, there is nothing more important than morality. It is the basis of the very possibility of civilization.

Secondly, infrastructure is ignored by politicians because they prefer to waste the government's money elsewhere. It is well understood that the money appropriated for maintaining and repairing infrastructure is diverted into pet projects of politicians with more of a political pay-off. It's just the way it is. There's plenty of money. The government wastes it, because that's what government is good at.

Yes, because the Constitution is a piece of paper, albeit a brilliant piece of paper. It is imperfect, admittedly so, with clauses to make changes when times call for them. Therefore, I am trying to look past the Constitution, past convention, in order to find your meaning.

"No, I say let the people decide. As I said, if given the choice, the vast majority is against the idea of the state redefining marriage."

I agree, let the people decide. And I agree that the vast majority (of our deity-driven societies) will be against the idea of the state redefining marriage. My question is why. What is the downside of letting two people of the same sex marry?

"No, not at all. You believe it is moral to radically redefine marriage, while most people don’t see it that way. You are free to make that moral argument, but realize that your morality is not shared by most people. You will have to pursuade people, not just demonize those with whom you disagree. "

I don't feel satisfied by this response. The root of this conflict is a difference in morality. A foundation where large segments of the country are unlikely to agree. Why does the national conversation revolve around these divisive issues, when we could all be talking about the state of schools, roads and fundamental infrastructure? I wondered if the amount of attention placed, on an issue that is quite unlikely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, is a good use of our collective time. Why can't we table these "moral" issues until we have our country's facilities sound?

 Communication is inspiration,

Hillary