| Of course they were living by their own values and the Constitution which they authored took on a wholly different meaning than what we understand it to be today. Look at it this way: Sometime in the past, America accepted this definition of "marriage": a monogamous union of one man and one woman. Was the Constitution there at the time this was accepted? Yes. Back then gay and polygamous unions were not accpted as valid marriages. But times and social mores change, so they say. Now it is claimed that the time has come for gay unions to be included into the definition of "marriage". Fine. Let's fine out whether the time has indeed come. Let's ask the people. I don't understand why this idea is abhorrent to you. It isn't about taking away or not respecting rights. It's about finding out the scope of such rights at this time, recognizing the fact that the scope and boundaries of rights are constantly evolving. |