tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16082864.post114658724987738165..comments2023-06-21T08:46:40.230-05:00Comments on Fundamentals: No on this "marriage amendment"Siarlys Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16082864.post-1149530332807527372006-06-05T12:58:00.000-05:002006-06-05T12:58:00.000-05:00Hi Anonymous, you are the first person to take thi...Hi Anonymous, you are the first person to take this site seriously enough to respond. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I can't agree that currently SOCIETY disregards the fundamental definition of what marriage IS. Certainly there are people with fervent hopes and good access to the media who think they can redefine it. In Wisconsin, neither the legislature nor the courts show any signs of accepting such arguments. I'm not putting my faith in constitutional amendments as the affirmation that marriage is what it is.Siarlys Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16082864.post-1149030440816146332006-05-30T18:07:00.000-05:002006-05-30T18:07:00.000-05:00The proposition of letting the definition of marri...The proposition of letting the definition of marriage stand on its own without the intervention of democracy is idealistic and I can't honestly say I trust the definition to hold up against those who wish to change it. I wholeheartedly believe that marriage is a union specifically between a man and a woman, and I think that needs to be supported in the Constitution. 200 years ago, this wasn't necessary, because it was widely understood what marriage was, however times change and I believe we need to make a stand in morals and make a standard for America's guiding principles. I plan to vote yes for legally defining marriage, as current society constantly disregards it and wishes to alter a divine institution that has been present in the world since the beginning. I believe it needs to be defended, not merely trusted in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com