Marriage and the creation of families has been an integral part of our society since its creation it should not be defined without the kind of involvement by the people which a constitutional process would require.

There are more than 30 states who either by statute or constitutional amendment have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage?

Thousands of years and many civilizations have defined a marriage as the union between one man and one woman. With few exceptions those civilizations that did not follow that perished.

Marriage is a lot of things - a source of love security the joy of children but it's also an interpersonal battlefield and it's not hard to see why: Take two disparate people toss them together in often-confined quarters add the stresses of money and kids - now lather rinse repeat for the rest of your natural life. What could go wrong?

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape originally defined as abduction became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time to be not only use of but possession of or ownership.

Love to faults is always blind always is to joy inclined. Lawless winged and unconfined and breaks all chains from every mind.

I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that sacrament should extend... to that legal entity of a union between what traditionally in our Western values has been defined as between a man and a woman.

Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked leadership is defined by results not attributes.

Whole areas of knowledge and information have been defined into nonexistence because the system cannot know understand control or measure them.