[Osborn F Enready]

Pat Henry said: Would you say, "I want to marry my daughter, I want to marry my mother, I want to marry my dog, I want to marry 47 wimmen. I want to marry my friend's two year-old daughter, and I WILL have sex with my wife. You may not violate my right to do so?"

Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable?

I say: No Pat, I think you know I would say that most of what you printed is wrong, and I would not condone it. I however WOULD NEVER DECIDE FOR SOMEONE ELSE what THEY can or CAN'T call marriage.

Who has the authority, by the Constitution, to define marriage? Surely not the federal government!?! It is the churches obligation to insure its priests and all agents of their name peform up to THEIR STANDARDS OF ETHICS. What you are seeing is the breakdown of churches, from the inside, because they cannot enforce their own rules amongst themselves.

Church, all of them considered seperate, or the same entity, are seperate and operate as a non-profit business. It is the DUTY of that BUSINESS(the church) to DEFINE ITS OWN SET OF POLICY THAT ITS AGENTS(priests, ministers, pastors, etc...) WOULD PERFORM IN THEIR(the churches) NAME.

I simply cannot define this any clearer.

If the religious allow the government to perform marriages, without the conscent of the church, than once again, WHO IS TO BLAME?

The people of the church, as it is THEM who should have cried foul and united with others to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE AND RELIGION, but they didn't because it aided their cause, am I mistaken here?