OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[yuandy]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I'll admit that I don't object to same-sex couples receiving domestic rights and being able to declare their commitment to each other in a way that is meaningful to them. I wouldn't choose it for myself (I'm straight), but if that means marriage for these couples, fine. I know fellow Christians disagree with me and that's fine too. My beef is all the stuff that happens as a sideline. The stuff that isn't on the ballot and has nothing to do with marriage proper-- and is a consequence of marriage being a basic, fundamental right.

In MA, where same-sex marriages are legal, there was a Catholic Charities group that ran an adoption agency. I was reading that because they refused to do adoptions for same-sex couples, the group was forced to shut down the adoption agency. Note: I don't know what "forced to shut down" means but I assume it was the result of legal proceedings (or the threat thereof), I'd guess something involving the loss of non-profit status, since I can't think of any other reason to force an adoption agency to shut down.

I recognize that this is a complex issue. There's more than just domestic rights-- there's also the child's welfare at stake. The group believed in its mission to put children into households with a married man and woman as parents. The whole child-rearing deal is a tangent and discussing it is probably a can of worms, so I won't say more on that. My deal is that I'm unhappy that the adoption agency was forced to shut down-- that the group was not allowed to practice what they firmly believed in.

Then, there are public incidents of just plain poor judgment. My beef with these is that there is no legal recourse for something that would otherwise have been totally unacceptable. Consider that some days after the supreme court struck down the marriage ban this summer (which is what prompted CA Prop 8)-- an elementary school teacher took her entire classroom of kids on a field trip, without parental notification or permission, to be ushers in her same-sex marriage ceremony. It was in the local news. If he/she had gotten parental permission first, would have been fine.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@LE:
Thanks so much for responding, it has likewise been a great discussion. I understand that we won't necessarily see eye-to-eye on this (it all comes down to whether or not God exists, it seems!), but I hope I've shown you that even if someone disagrees with g ay marriage on a religious basis, it doesn't mean they hate or don't care about g ay people.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Then, there are public incidents of just plain poor judgment. My beef with these is that there is no legal recourse for something that would otherwise have been totally unacceptable. Consider that some days after the supreme court struck down the marriage ban this summer (which is what prompted CA Prop 8)-- an elementary school teacher took her entire classroom of kids on a field trip, without parental notification or permission, to be ushers in her same-sex marriage ceremony. It was in the local news. If he/she had gotten parental permission first, would have been fine.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think the parents didn't give permission? According to this article: "As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said." It also says that the field trip actually wasn't the teacher's idea; one of the parents organized it as a surprise. I dunno, I actually thought it was a pretty cute story. But then, I'm sort of a huge sap

*Geneticists have discovered the genetic roots of male homosexuality but while they have not discovered the “g ay gene†(the actual genes that increase the probability of male homosexuality,) they have located a region of a chromosome that is involved-genetic marker at Xq28. Researchers theorize that the genes for male homosexuality may be passed on to the next generation, not by g ay men, but by their sisters. They theorize that the so-called g ay genes may incline their carriers, male or female, toward the same behavior: to have sex with men. If the carriers are male, then they become male homosexuals (but are then unable to reproduce to pass on the gene). The reduced reproductive success of g ay men is offset by the heightened reproductive success of their sisters, and the gene survives. This idea is supported by studies that have found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men have more children than female maternal relatives of heterosexual men.

Wow, really? That's fascinating.

 

[Liquid_Evil]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

My deal is that I'm unhappy that the adoption agency was forced to shut down-- that the group was not allowed to practice what they firmly believed in.

You're unhappy because a group was shut down for discriminatory practices?

I'm sure when push came to shove, the adoption agency had the choice between allowing same-sex couples to adopt or simply closing their doors. When you look at the big picture consequences of their choice, it was the children that really lost out. Are same-sex parents really worse than no parents at all?

@LE: Thanks so much for responding, it has likewise been a great discussion.

Ditto, but could you (if you're comfortable) answer the questions I posed for you? (if you don't want to, that's fine too, I just wanted to make sure you saw them) I'm just curious as to whether a case of homosexuality closer to home influences Christians one way or another. Curiousity I suppose. But like I said, no worries if you don't want to respond.

What if your offspring was homosexual? Wouldn’t you hope that they were treated equally in society and given the same rights as another man’s heterosexual children? Doesn’t that include giving them the opportunity to find happiness with a life partner through marriage?

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Oh, sorry. I thought you were asking those rhetorically (or whatever the term is :s)

What if your offspring was homosexual? Wouldn’t you hope that they were treated equally in society and given the same rights as another man’s heterosexual children?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. All for it.

Doesn’t that include giving them the opportunity to find happiness with a life partner through marriage?

Lol, here's the sticky bit. If I were to be snooty, my response would be:

"Why, yes! That would be ideal!"

Because, to me, marriage means man x woman. But I know that's not what you're asking. I figure what you're asking is:

Doesn't that include giving them the opportunity to find happiness with a same-sex life partner in a lasting, meaningful relationship (which is also being called a marriage)?

I would certainly hope that my child would be happy. And whether or not he lives in such a relationship would be entirely his choice. But, above both his and my happiness, I would hope that he would follow God. As such, even though he might not like it, I would advise against such a relationship and offer support to a different direction. And, if he did end up choosing such a relationship - though I know it would pain both me and him - I could not condone it, because I should also value following God over my own happiness.

(I say 'should' because I frequently don't. Even though I should. Failures on my part
Following God doesn't mean "No fun allowed!" but it does mean being willing to give up something we want if God asks it.)

Again, I emphasize that I would not love him any less. I don't recall Jesus ever asking us to hate anyone. Heck, he asks us to love our enemies. How much more, then, should I love my own son, even if he insists on doing what I believe to be wrong? I wouldn't do anything stupid like refuse to talk to him or make demands or threats or ultimatums. I'm not sure what I'd do, but it would involve keeping a strong relationship with him.

I've already had a...somewhat similar, I guess...experience; having been friends for a while with an openly g ay guy. I knew he was in relationships with other guys, he knew I was Christian. Sure, it wasn't like we agreed on everything. But it didn't stop us from being friends, hanging out, even talking about it seriously from time to time. Granted, he wasn't my son.

 

[Cygnus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Then, there are public incidents of just plain poor judgment. My beef with these is that there is no legal recourse for something that would otherwise have been totally unacceptable. Consider that some days after the supreme court struck down the marriage ban this summer (which is what prompted CA Prop 8)-- an elementary school teacher took her entire classroom of kids on a field trip, without parental notification or permission, to be ushers in her same-sex marriage ceremony. It was in the local news. If he/she had gotten parental permission first, would have been fine.

False. Here's the SF Chronicle story on that incident.

Quote: "As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did."

Besides, it wasn't the teacher's idea. A parent suggested it, and they surprised the teacher at the wedding.

 

[Ashmer Amadeus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I've only glanced over this fairly quickly. This post will probly show a lot of ignorance on my part for not reading both pages (65 posts). I noticed in the early post that marriage = sex. I don't agree with this. My wife is a Chritian (I think) and I am agnostic. My son was eight months old when I was married. The only thing that changed between the time I asked her to marry me, and the time that she said "I do" is the amount of money spent on a ceramony. And for what thats worth, I'd rather have the money, and to heck with all the pomp. Five hundred bucks for a dress no one will ever wear again. I believe very much that you can have a sexual relationship with someone regardless of each participants martial status. And provided its concentual, I could care less who (or what) any person has a sexual relationship with. If a man needs to have sex with another man to be happy, so be it. So long as I'm not the other man. If a woman needs to be with another woman to be happy, so be it, provided my wife isn't the other woman. If a woman decides that no man or woman can make her happy, thats fine too. Stock up on batteries. Sex is only part of the equation. If I had to choose a religion (again, I'm agnostic) I would choose to be atheist. Religion is the biggest hoax in all of human kind. Following the Christian religion, homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible, aren't we all sinners anyway? According to the bible as I know it (which isn't well) the only perfect person what JC himself. Homosexal people are living their lives as sinners. So isn't everyone else. I fail to see the big deal here. We all have a finite amout of time here on earth. I intend to be happy for as much of that time as I can. I think everyone wants to be happy as much as they can. Different things make different people happy. And the other part of the equation is marriage. What does it mean? I married my wife because she is the person I want to grow old with. I don't care about tax breaks and what have you. I would've married her without all the perks. I don't care about the ring, the ceramony, the cake, the tax benefits. I married her because I love her. And even if I didn't have all that stuff I'd love her just the same. And if I can feel this way about marriage, it seems to me, that guy 1 could feel this way about guy 2, or that girl 1 could feel this way about girl 2. I believe in the bible that God says he will never wipe out human kind again after the Noah's ark bit. If we let homosexuals marry, whats the worst that happens? If my bible knowledge is correct (and it might be?) we shouldn't fear divine retrebution. Would God be sad or angry? Yeah, probly. But I believe he is in a fairly constant state of sadness, anger or pity for the human race in general. Legally what happens if we let homosexuals marry? Someones husband/wife is allowed to say pull the plug. They do a little better on their taxes. Thier checks say Mr and Mr Smith. Will the world crumble? I doubt it. I think what it really boils down to is you can't please all of the people all of the time. Personally, I could care less who someone shares their body with, or who they want to marry. But there are some people who would be offended simply because a man is married to another man. To each their own I say. To each their own.

 

[ginNtonic]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Maybe its cause I was raised by a couple hippys, but on this subject, people should be allowed to do whatever they want. This thread is too hot for me though *runs away*

 

[Timjl]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Conceded that the analogy is far from perfect, but the point it's trying to get across is nothing so complicated. All it intends to say can be summed up as:
[Christian PoV]
-Human sexuality is a gift from God; he has ultimate authority on its use. (dad's house, dad's crayons, etc.)
-There are restrictions on its use. These restrictions apply to all people. (nobody is allowed to draw on the wall, whether they want to or not)
-The reasons for the restrictions won't always seem obvious. (because, intellectually, we are like children compared to God)
[/Christian PoV]

Ahem. This is indeed where the problem lies. Many Christians would disagree that "g ay" relationships fall under the category of "things we should not do". There are very many models of relationships in th Bible - in fact, if we were following Biblical principles, and objected so much to the state "owning" the word "marriage", then polygamy should be a far bigger issue than "g ay" marriages: it is never condemned in the Bible, and is the most widespread Biblical model of relationships.

Fact is, polygamy isn't accepted in western society. Why? To re - inforce the point, why is polygamy (which has Biblical backing) condemned? Why aren Christians NOT fighting just as hard for polygamous marriages as they are against "g ay" marriages? As far as children go, a female was considered a woman and ready to get married at about 13, just after her first menarche, Why don't we demand that either?

The only valid argument (the only argument which makes any theological sense at all) is the argument of the Roman Catholic Church: that the purpose of marriage is procreation; and that this is why "g ay" marriages cannot be accepted by that Church. (Your marriage is not valid if you get married with no intent to have children, among other things), but that is not the argument we are hearing here.

Society changes. And our understanding of the Christian message also changes. As I have said, there are relationships which are common in the Bible, and which have no sanction against them at all (slave - master; polygamy; even poloyandry) but which are now not accepted at all in western Christianity. According to your argument, we should be fighting just as hard to protect polygamy, slavery, and polyandry ....

 

[Cius]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This is a very emotionally charged issue. It is also mostly about how society shifts. As I see it marriage has always been between man and woman and it should be left like that. Same sex partnerships are choices that individuals can make but why try use a word that has so much meaning to the majority of the world and try to make what it has never been?

I think the reason that Christians are standing against this is that according to their beliefs it is wrong. To them homosexuality is the next most serious sin to murder and is the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. Legalizing it and making it the same as normal marriage would be almost like living in a country where murder was legal from a Christians perspective. I know its a bad analogy as marriage between two other people being legal arguably has no impact on others unlike legalized murder. I think the long term worry is rather that legalizing it will over time soften society's view towards it and so raise up a generation who think its OK against scriptural teachings.

As a Christian I am against same sex marriage. I have a high level of respect for individuals choices and beliefs and part of me says give it to them but at the same time I would not want to raise my kids in a place where it is considered absolutely normal and the same as traditional marriage. I realize that society is changing and probably sometime soon the whole world will recognize it and I accept that as well. Democracy must prevail. I have friends who are homosexual and they are still my friends. As was pointed out earlier we are all sinners together. If its OK to hate or exclude sinners then all of us would have to experience that. That is why I believe in accepting people for who they are but at the same time building a society that stands for the ideal that we can strive towards.

In the end of the day I believe the Almighty knows what is best and can see the end results from the beginning. He put commandments in place not to restrict us but to provide a path towards greater happiness. That is what I place my trust and belief in. Anyways, I hope I have not caused offense to anyone. Typing can never carry the emotion in ones voice and can be mistaken so easily. This whole post was written with me feeling incredibly sad for all the people involved on both sides of this incredibly intricate and complex issue and a great deal of introspection. Hope it is read in that light.

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

First, lots of good ideas here. I've really enjoyed reading everything. The things that I disagreed with gave me pause for thought, and the things I did agree with articulated my thoughts so well.

Second, a disclaimer: six pints, agnostic, don't really care about same-sex marriage.

I am quite baffled by those who say that marriage is and always has been only between a man and a woman. Marriage has been practiced every way that you can imagine that includes only humans. I don't know whether marriage has ever included animals. And to those who say they mean the Christian Tradition of Marriage: for most of Christianity's history, marriage was between a Man and a Female, possible a child. And no matter the age of the female, she was generally considered property, not an adult citizen with all the rights of a man.

It seems to me that the opposition to same-sex marriages boils down to a near obsession with conformity. "This is the way it always has been, and this is the way it should always be." Many of the arguments hinge on a slippery-slope. Some will claim that same-sex marriages will lead to man-ungulate marriages and woman-tricycle marriages. It sounds like a fear of change.

Also, someone said that people who oppose *** marriage on a Christian basis do so out of concern for the *** people. I don't think that this is true at all. Such a person discounts the *** individual's inborn right to think for themselves and instead chooses to dictate their behavior. This "ideal christian" does so out of concern for his/her own beliefs. I firmly oppose the idea that you can say that you will tell another adult what they can and cannot do with their own personal affairs, and that you are doing it for their own good. It doesn't make any sense to say that you really believe that you are qualified to tell hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other adults how they should live their lives, and that you can make a law to force/restrict them so. No one has mentioned it yet, but one of the most terrible powers in a democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority. The Judiciary was created for the express purpose of limiting the tyranny of the majority, to protect the rights of the Minority.

I'm a Kantian, and I think that removing a person from decisions about their own welfare denies their humanity. And I don't mean that we shouldn't have laws, but I think everyone should have (in this case) Freedom of Association.

 

[Rapha]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

To set some background, I'm neither American (though I do live here) nor Christian, so my opinion might appear overly simplistic to many of you. Also, I'm neither homosexual nor married. In a nutshell, if something doesn't directly and seriously affect me, then I shouldn't attempt to regulate it. There is a French saying that goes "One's freedom ends where others' freedom starts" and that's essentially what I abide to. That's my mother's tongue, so forgive me if there's a similar English saying.

In this specific case, I'm having trouble grasping how allowing same-sex marriage affects anyone's life to any significant degree. (Besides, obviously, the parties involved in the union.) Of course, I can understand why it goes against religious beliefs, but how exactly does it affect you in a serious, significant, life-altering way? Now look at the opposite side: by denying gays/lesbians an opportunity to get married, you are certainly having a major impact on their personal life. How is that fair? Tolerance is key, and such actions do not strike me as being tolerant.

Again, this might seem borderline naive, but I firmly believe that (most) everyone would be happier if they followed a similar philosophy. And ask yourself this question honestly: aren't there more important things to worry about, and spend energy on, in this world?

 

[NoisemakerArrow]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

So, did anyone ever give kanonfutter non-religious reasons for opposing *** marriage? I skipped some pages, because all this discussion is a waste of time.

First of all, freedom means being able to do anything you want, as long as you're not hurting anyone. Any country that bills itself as free but doesn't allow *** marriage is a joke.

Second of all, to everyone who goes around saying "God this, God that", three points:

1) Which God?

2) Prove he exists.

3) My God could kick your God's ***.

*** marriage is one of those phony issues used by politicians in an attempt to fool the public into believing there are differences between politicians. Just like the environment. All politicians and parties in many countries are funded by the same people, and they always work to advance the same deep agenda. And, as always, religion is used to excuse hatred and violence and to mask the drive for power and gain. That's what we should be talking about. *** marriage will happen when people stop accepting the lies they're told at every turn and begin to think for themselves, when people stop always looking for ways in which they're different and start looking for ways in which they're alike, when people start living by the principles of love and compassion instead of pretending they are.

 

[Cius]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

In this specific case, I'm having trouble grasping how allowing same-sex marriage affects anyone's life to any significant degree. (Besides, obviously, the parties involved in the union.) Of course, I can understand why it goes against religious beliefs, but how exactly does it affect you in a serious, significant, life-altering way? Now look at the opposite side: by denying gays/lesbians an opportunity to get married, you are certainly having a major impact on their personal life. How is that fair? Tolerance is key, and such actions do not strike me as being tolerant.

Again, this might seem borderline naive, but I firmly believe that (most) everyone would be happier if they followed a similar philosophy. And ask yourself this question honestly: aren't there more important things to worry about, and spend energy on, in this world?

Extremely good points, and one that I will attempt to answer. First you need to understand that Christians believe that legalizing same sex unions will have a serious effect on them. In the Bible it mentions that Sodom and Gomorrah where destroyed due to the sin of homosexuality becoming institutionalized and common among all the people. By allowing society to head in that direction some Christians believe that the society itself may degrade to that level, hence their involvement in this issue. To them its a fairly similar question to should one legalize drugs? Yes people have free will but in the case of drugs society passes laws to limit free will to protect people from themselves. Its a matter of society accepting things that from their perspective are harmful. So while many Athiests, Agnostics, and even Christians have no problem with same sex marriage the more traditional Christians have a huge issue with it.

I understand and respect that to many people there are no consequences to society regarding this and that is why I am guessing that eventually it will be recognized in most places. Yet if a country is predominantly Christian and mainly wants to protect itself from going down the road of Sodom and Gomorrah then people will vote to not legalize same sex unions.

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

In the Bible it mentions that Sodom and Gomorrah where destroyed due to the sin of homosexuality becoming institutionalized and common among all the people.

That's a very debatable claim (people of Sodom and Gomorrah where guilty of many sins) and that doesn't get you around, what I believe in the USA is called, the First Amendment.

 

[Andronicus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Soooo...

After 8 pages, we're dealing with "If *** marriage is allowed, God may destroy our country?"


Oh dear me.

 

[Timjl]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Yes. Don't you understand? This threatens the very fabric of society!



I'm from South Africa. We've had "g ay" marriage here now for several years. While we have many problems, "g ay" marriages destroying the fabric of the [strikethrough]space - time - continuum[/strikethrough] .... sorry, I meant society .... is not one of them ...

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

:\

I'm gonna have to say I don't think God's gonna go fire-and-brimstoning cities anyday soon.

First off, yes, Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many sins besides. Nowhere does God say "Should any city of any age be given to the practise of homosexuality, I shall then destroy that city."

Secondly, since the death and resurrection of Jesus, "our God is a God of second chances" (as the VeggieTales Jonah movie puts it!). God's love for sinners outweighs his anger at our sins. Otherwise, we'd all be in trouble, g ay marriage or not.

*
Same-sex unions? The church has no place in making decisions about those. They already exist, where I'm from. Same-sex marriage? That's the question here, and it has nothing to do with exluding people from a rite. It has to do with what the rite means in the first place.

to NoisemakerArrow:

So, did anyone ever give kanonfutter non-religious reasons for opposing *** marriage? I skipped some pages, because all this discussion is a waste of time.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyhow, I don't think anyone did. I know I didn't. If I didn't think God had an issue with homosexuality, I, personally, would have no problem with it.

But you speak as though you're missing the point; as though g ay marriage is something people are just itching to do, but can't because the church is holding them back. (To which you might say "Uh, yeah, that's EXACTLY what's happening!") But look a bit further up in my post; the place with the *.
In a nutshell, that's the issue. If it becomes decided that marriage is a state issue, and what a priest does for a young man and woman is something different, then g ay marriage all the way. If marriage remains in it's traditional meaning, then it means a union between a man and a woman. G ay people aren't excluded, they just wouldn't be interested.

And to your three questions about God:

1) The one that invented the concept of sex and implemented it in humans.

2) No can do! Only you can prove this God to you. Nor is it easy. You have to look for him.

3)

*** marriage is one of those phony issues used by politicians in an attempt to fool the public into believing there are differences between politicians. Just like the environment. All politicians and parties in many countries are funded by the same people, and they always work to advance the same deep agenda. And, as always, religion is used to excuse hatred and violence and to mask the drive for power and gain.

Sadly, yes. I believe you are correct. However, the issue I'm taking up has nothing to do with politics. Pointed this out above already.

 

[MuddyWaters]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Hi all. My english skills aren’t good enough to really take part in this controversy. I lack the subtly and the verve to really express my point properly. Oh well, God knows that this hasn’t stopped me before. Excuses in advance for anything that can pass as harsh. I assure it isn’t on purpose.

Dad buys crayons. He says to his children that painting in paper is all right, but painting the walls is a no no. Ok, I can live with that.

But some children left dad’s house and are living in new houses. Does dad has a say about where the painting is allowed in those houses? Better yet, does the children that remained at dad’s house have the right to stop the children that left from painting their walls as they see fit ?

Point in case. I’m yet to see a solid argument against same sex marriage that isn’t based on morality beliefs of right or wrong. The core objection always is the morality question. And morality isn’t settled in stone. Yes, there are lines to be drawn, but there are also a lot of gray areas where what is and what isn’t tolerable varies from individual to individual.

The church (any church) has all the right of saying what is ok and what is a no no to their followers. After all, nobody is required to follow this or that religion.

At the same time I don’t see why religion beliefs would have a say in what is allowed to society as a whole. Specially in a subject that is essentially of individual character. If John wants to marry Bob and have a life together, well, that’s John’s and Bob’s business and no Christians, Muslims or anyone else should have a say on that. The choice to marry and establish a family with the same rights as everyone else clearly falls under the basic human rights to me. Surely, John and Bob should not expect to be married at a church, a regular one at least. But there’s no real reason society should deny them a civil marriage with the same rights as say, Jon and Jane.

I know that this is a polemic subject, but at the same time, I have a feeling that in the decades to come, people will look those discussions with the same eyes we nowadays look at the pro and against slavery discussions back in the day.

My two cents only.

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

But you speak as though you're missing the point; as though g ay marriage is something people are just itching to do, but can't because the church is holding them back. (To which you might say "Uh, yeah, that's EXACTLY what's happening!") But look a bit further up in my post; the place with the *.
In a nutshell, that's the issue. If it becomes decided that marriage is a state issue, and what a priest does for a young man and woman is something different, then g ay marriage all the way. If marriage remains in it's traditional meaning, then it means a union between a man and a woman. G ay people aren't excluded, they just wouldn't be interested.

It almost seems like you want to make it a semantical issue, which is pretty pointless. The meaning of words changes frequently and none of this should be handled in a constitution. It is, after all, a constitution, not a dictionary. If I call the union between Bob and John marriage, what are you going to do? Sue me?