As a Constitutional Conservative, this whole Man/Woman marriage thing is just a little distressing. The debate always centers around one thing. What is "right". The folks that are in the <religious> right have only one answer it is what God intended. I hate to break this to you but "marriage" is not a biblical word. Please take your time and look it up.  I'll wait.....  In the translations of authority, those derived directly from Latin and Hebrew text, the term marriage is not found.

The only you place you see this word marriage in the bible is in some of the newer interpretive versions, and I don't use the term version lightly, of the bible. Authoritative text like The King James (1611 AD) New American Standard (1956 AD) and other translations (note not versions) of the bible do not contain the word marriage.

What has happened is “modern” society has decided a religious interpretation of a secular term. In this case a contract registered with the government. The bible does command a “husband to cleave to his wife” granted. But the term husband (masculine) and wife (feminine) are not in debate. The question centers around the question: Can the government designed to protect the rights of all people, not just a majority, discriminate in it’s action based on the sex of the individuals involved? Can the government, based on secular reasoning? For example can a contract only involve a husband (man) and a wife (woman) and not a husband and husband or wife and wife?

Regardless of my personal feelings about homosexuality, I believe that our government can’t discriminate in anyway against any individual(s) based on race, color, creed or sex. Having said this I also can’t abide with the concept of marriage, a contract registered with the government for the purpose of census and taxation, will not recognize a union regardless of the sex of the participants.

But America was founded on Christian principles! you say. May I point out the original European settlers came to this country due to religious persecution! Our founding fathers designed our government specifically so that something like the Church of England, a religious order subject to the government, could not occur here? Any time we foist religious principles by law we step close to the precipice that leads to the fanaticism we are currently fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. We could find our selves trying to impose first century values on a modern world.

For those of you who just said to your computer screen - “Well some good ol’ Christian values never hurt anybody!” <Start Sarcasm> I would like to introduce you to the Spanish Inquisition, a tender and loving point in history in which you could believe anything you wanted as long as you saw it the “right” way. <Sarcasm End>

I tolerate homosexuality not because it is something I believe in. but because my strong belief in individual freedom will not allow me to do anything else.

As soon as everybody realizes this, the sooner our monuments like the Ten Commandments in Alabama, a hilltop war memorial in the shape of a cross in Southern California (Mt Solidad Cross) can stay were the people want them. Tolerating individual freedom cuts both ways. It is my contention that the Atheists that foist their beliefs on others are just as wrong as the “Moral Majority”.

True freedom is a state of mind that must be shared among everybody. If I can’t tolerate your choices and differences then you can’t be free. By doing that I limit my freedom as well.

The constitution is supposed to protect the rights of people, not legislate behavior. Freedom first, and that requires tolerance.

In reading through the plethora of information on both sides of the political isle, I have had trouble with identifying with either, or more accurately any side.

Thank you Townhall.com for this opportunity.

My preferred label – Constitutional Conservative. AKA Freedom lover. I firmly believe or forefathers were not only ahead of their time, but ahead of our time, and they didn’t even know it. I have a belief structure that demonstrates our fellow humans actually do have rights, not defined by law, but by the creator, in what ever form you choose to make the creator.

You have the right to express yourself...  Folks just don't have to listen

You have the right to defend your self, your fellow humans and your domain

You have the right to look for and attempt to obtain happiness, as long as other's rights are not infrenged upon.

It is my concern that any law based on moral judgments rooted in a religious framework are not only against the precept of freedom, they are unconstitutional.

My plan here to use this forum to express these views in hopes that I am not alone in the universe and can find like minded people.  For those who are not like minded, I beleive we can learn form each other in hopes to making our comunity, county and planet a better place to live.

May the lively discussions commence…..