Congressman, if this is the best you can do with a question of the week, the first in two weeks, with so much on the line then it is obvious sir that you are going to fail us yet again in this congress. I'm flabbergasted. We have dealt with this question on the blog already, and not long ago. The Supreme Court has the case sir. As a member of the judiciary committee I would think you would be aware of this. The vast majority of the constituents are moving on sir, I would strongly urge you to do the same, and cease expending even more money to pay lawyers to work on this case as the republican leadership authorized on the first day the new congress convened, a fact you omitted here. The voters are not ignorant congressman Forbes. My goodness this is astoundingly bizarre. You have recently polled us regarding how you are doing. This is also strange given that the entire country views the congress with only 9 percent approval. Is the answer not obvious sir? Of course you are failing us. You tried three times last year to shutdown the government. You voted to shove our great nation into default sir. This greatly harmed our country, damaging the very private sector you purport to support yet your policy decisions have all had horrific effects on the economy. The current congress has not even been in session a month and already you are plotting to shut it down again. Already you have abandoned the middle-class by voting against middle-class tax cuts. You complain about spending and you only report spending you seem to take pride in, and you never report to us the details of spending you would like to curtail, especially the billions of dollars in oil and gas subsidies people on this blog have begged you to comment on for two years. I have written to you and called your offices in both Chesapeake and Washington to ask two simple questions. The first was, do you support an increase in tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, yes or no. The second was, do you support increasing the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. I told your staff I needed these questions posed to you in exactly those words, more than once sir and I cannot get an answer. Congressman, there are MILLIONS of people all across this country that can answer this question. Why can't you? You cannot answer this, and you expect the constituents to respect you for acting to shove the country into default, acting to harm us in very serious ways? Congressman, I want a LOT better representation from you in this congress. Do not even ask how you are doing in Washington until you do SOMETHING sir.

Changing the definition of marriage is revisionism. History is replete with the understanding that marriage is defined by the union of opposite genders. The right way to change government language is to entirely supercede the word marriage. Provide the same legal union and confer all the same rights to consenting adults regardless of gender. Moreover, rights conferred by government to married or civily united people should be reviewed. Property and hospital visitation rights, etc. should be granted to the legally united. Benefits, extenuations, or mitigations conferred upon families should be qualified exclusively by a sponsor-dependent relationship.

It should be defined by the two people marrying each other. Not friends. Not parents or relatives. Not religious leaders; and certainly NOT any government. Marriage is a personal choice.

The definition of marriage should be made only by religious organizations. Governmental organizations should concern themselves with legally defined domestic partnerships.

I BELIEVE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE DEFINED BY GOD.

THe federal government should not dictate what "marriage" is.. because there should be separation of church and state. Marriage is something recognized more as a religious state. the federal government should provide equal protection under the law, which is currently does not due because of the definition of marriage. The law should define a "union" for tax purposes so couple would have to file for recognition of their "union' and the devolvement of that union only for tax perposes.

No civil government has the authority to define marriage. God already has defined marriage through His Word, the Holy Bible. The federal, state and local governments may not change God's definition of marriage, the holy union between one man and one woman. The federal, state and local governments should not have any interest in defining marriage, because none of those governments should be providing health care, welfare, or any other unconstitutional program. Those needs and others should be defined and provided through the same institution that should oversee marriages - the church.

The question about who should define marriage is really ambiguous. The only issue is whether, for legal purposes, a "state" authority recognizes the "marriage". That is for tax purposes, contracts, next of kin, etc. When we deal outside of legality, the individuals define that.

Marriage is a religous act, and should be defined by the church. It has by default also become a legal/civil act for for practical legal reasons. Clearly, a civil union can have the same legal effect as a religious marriage. Therefore, the state should have no say in the matter. If a state wants to have civil unions for gays, and pets, and anything they want, so transvestites can visit thier darling in the hospital, and check the not-single status on their tax returns, so be it. But Marriage comes from God's plan and is a church,not a state issue.

While my personal opinion is that marriage should absolutely be defined as between one man and one woman, I'll be honest and admit I do not know the constitution well enough to say whether or not the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutionally sound for the purposes of federal law (which is what the survey asked). I guess I need to do some reading on that one! That being said, I do believe the federal government needs to define the marriage standard, vs state or local entities. This is a foundational issue to our culture and our nation, therefore it needs to be established on a federal level. Thanks, Congressman Forbes, for all your hard work to promote Biblical values in our government!

I think Govt should be worrying about taxes and budget concerns before what goes on in bedroom.

Simple husband (man) wife (woman) That makes it all clear. Man and man and woman and woman and woman can have a civil union.

The foundation of America is "the laws of Nature and Nature's God". Sir William Blackstone and his commentaries on law were the standard of American Law in 1776. Natural Law is defined as the Law of God and is contained in the "holy scriptures" of the Old and New Testament. Our Founders believed that when God had spoken, the matter was settled. No human law is of any validity if contrary to God's Law.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage, therefore we have to look at the 10th amendment which says that the states or the people must make those decisions. Therefore California should win this case since the people have decided against same sex marriage. As a Christian same sex mariage is wrong. This prohibition is in both the Old and New Testaments. That ends the discussion.

While I'm a big fan of the Bible, we have to look at the structure of government based on it's current construction and not our individual faiths. Managing the definition of marriage is not one of the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government, and maintaining a non-fluid definition for the purposes of federal law forces a citizen to be under conflicting law in states where the definition of marriage differs. As per the 10th amendment, the states shall define marriage laws for themselves.

1. The DOMA is constitutional until ruled otherwise by the "Supreme Court". 2. Marriage is already defined by Fed Gov - however, if repealed then it would be left up to the states by default.

If we had godly men and women in office this would not be an issue. America...brace yourself for the coming judgment.

The Bible clearly defines Marriage!! The Federal & State Gov. needs to accept that and stay out of it.

I suppose that constitutionally the Federal Government should make the determination, but that entity has gotten us (the United States) into the mess after conceding to what other states have done. However, I don't trust Congress as a whole to make the right decision. God does have a way of making everything suit His will, no matter what the consequences might be for the people involved.

In Theory, I support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In the absence of that, it is a state rights issue.

If you cannot justify a law without using religious references, it should not be a law. Remove marriage entirely from the legal code, leave it a purely religious institution, and remove the associated provisions from the tax and legal codes.

The Bible is THE final word.

I truly believe that our constitution does not allow for bias. Like it or not, believe in it or not even if it goes against my religion. I think that they have a right to be married.

Not all US Citizens believe in God. Most Us Citizens that do don't necessarily agree on what God's word means. For instance, Catholics and Baptists don't agree on the Right of Baptism. because of the Separation of Church and State I do not think that God's law needs to be stated as secular or Federal Law.

A marriage is the union of two people who choose to be married--it is greatly personal, and should not be restricted by a government. If you want to marry someone who is of the same sex, fine. If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, fine. If you do not want to marry, fine. What works in your life is good--it is not my place to judge you. It is not my place to restrict what others do as long as it does not infringe on my rights. The Constitution was not intended to take rights away from some while allowing others to enjoy them--this is not some exclusive club where only the prejudiced get to play.

why is civil union not enough for them. that gives them all the legal rights of marriage. It seems to me that they just want to be told that what they are doing is ok. It takes a man and a woman to create a child and that starts with marriage.

I checked "other" on the 2nd question, who should define marriage. I'd like to see the government butt out. Other than prohibiting minors, or adults not competent to make decisions, big government shouldn't get itself involved.

The definition of marriage, although defined clearly by God, has also been voted on by the public. It is the public that congress should listen to. How dare they judge whether or not the public vote is valid!!! Homosexuals are a special interest group with a loud voice that congress says we shouldn't 'offend' or 'discriminate' against. What about the Christians who are offended at the special treatment homosexuals are given? Christians are being discriminated against, too, aren't they?! Congress is discrediting our voice and convictions.

The Bible IS very clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman. But as far as law goes, put it up to a vote in any state which wants to play God and let the VOTERS votes count and make the law legal in that state. The courts should NOT reverse the voters' decision. When the courts reverse the voters' decision, it says that voters are not important and that the court has more right than the voters.

This is a civil rights issue that should be based in law, not religion. Why would you want to deny to others what you want for yourself? It has never been shown to my satisfaction how a marriage between two women or two men hurts me or society. I would think that the very fact that two people love and want to commit to each other would be something most people would support -- and in increasing numbers they do nation-wide. I am almost 70, and I am glad that younger people are thinking for themselves and not just blindly accepting outmoded dogma. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: "...it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I think we would all be better off trying to practice the idea of live and let live.

Marriage is a religous institution or sacrament depending on your church. It was instituted to sanctify the union of a man and woman and to ask for the blessings of the Lord upon the joined couple. The state became involved on to regulate and profit from it. America was founded on Christian values with help of God's good graces. Time for the government to remember it's beginnings and get with the program

Marriage should not be defined by the government. It is simply a matter between two adults and if 2 people of the same sex find either a minister or judge willing to marry them then they should be allowed. I also hate people bringing the bible into it. Laws should be based on morals and ethics and it is morally wrong to deny 1 group of people a fundamental right all others have. Why can atheists marry? Bible also talks about how divorce is wrong. Are you going to ban that too? For the record i am a heterosexual christian but the god i love does not judge as harsh as people on earth.

the Federal Govt, per the US Constitution, cannot regulate that which does not affect interstate commerce. This is why the Feds cannot be the law enforcement authority for IN STATE murders. Same with Marriage, it is a state issue. Fed Govt has no jurisdiction. Just like IN State Gun Sales, Feds have NO jurisdiction. Gay life is NOT a Choice. The Bible is NOT clear on the issue when it is a genetic defect in the attraction center of the brain. We have far more to worry about than trying to stop two people from loving and committing to each other; merely due to a genetic defect. They will be together anyway, why do Republicans fight this issue, allowing the Satan Obama to be elected, when if they could just show some tolerance and understanding, most gays would vote repub. But NO, human christians PUSH THIS ISSUE, and we get obama. Gays stay together, nothing changes, except alienating voters. Obama is the true evil, not genetically defective/different people. Go talk to some gays, ask them how it came about. they will be happy to share with you.

God created and placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to dress and keep it. Seeing it wasn't good for Adam to be alone, God made a helpmate (Eve) for him. In Genesis 2:23-24 Adam defined marriage in his response to God's gift of Eve, "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman,because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh." God instituted marriage between one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden. God doesn't make mistakes. Man has no authority to change what God has established.

Marriage clearly is between a man and a woman. That is Biblical. Federal, state and local governments MUST recognize this.

Marriage was instituted by God and is defined by God as one man ,one woman, for life. Lest you think I am naive and unreasonable I have been divorced and have now been married for almost 38 years. I comprehend the damage does to all involved.

If everyone is touting the need for separation of church and state, then since Marriage is a Biblical term, it should also be separate from the state. There should be only civil unions. The state would issue Civil Union licenses and the church that a couple weds in will issue a Marriage license to go with the legal Civil Union. My beliefs are that marriage should be between one man and one woman. However since this country was founded on the freedom of religion, then lets only have a legal term for couples who wed, Civil Unions.

The only authority that should be able to define marriage is those getting married. If a person's beliefs indicate that they can't marry a member of their same gender, that is fine, but they do NOT have the right to tell someone else they can't. I happen to believe the government (local and state, as well as federal) should not take any interest in marriage at all, beyond name changes and inheritance adjudication, but if it must, it cannot base that recognition on any one religion's opinion of the matter. This should extend to polygamy/polgyny as well. The only reason anyone really cares about this is because the government grants additional rights to married couples, as well as tax breaks and similar financial incentives. As a single guy, I seriously resent being told I have less right to my own paycheck than a married man.

If it is not a specific power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, (and it isn't), then the power is granted to the people or the States. You really don't need years of study to know what the Constitution says. It's actually quite easy.

GOD has spoken

God defines the union: Genesis 2:24. Bit we can't expect all to believe this. Thus we must be concerned with sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those the Lord puts in our path and let the Holy Spirit guide them into all truth. John 16:12-14.

Who someone chooses to marry is between those 2 people. If they are legally adults then it is none of the governments business. Constitutionally same sex couples have the same legal rights as "traditional" couples and that means the State...s nor the Congress have any right to legislate against it. We are all entitled to equal protection under the law and there is nothing in the US Constitution that leads me to think homosexuals should be treated differently. You may believe it is sinful or unbiblical and that is your perogative, but we are a country governed by secular laws. My message to you Mr. Forbes and to the rest of the GOP is get out of our bedrooms, get out of our Doctors offices, and stop trying to jam your biblical morals down our throats...

God has already defined marriage in the Bible. That settles it as far as I am concerned. Government has been put in place by God to carry out His purposes. Whoa to those that lead this nation against God's perfect plan.

Because it is not a legal legislate religious tenants, or in this case, interpretations of them, I believe that it is discriminatory to not legally recognize homosexual marriages. The issue is not whether or not it is Christian to be homosexual. That is also open for debate. But in passing a law simply because it supposedly violates a Christian belief, is, in effect, forcing all Americans to abide by the laws of Christianity. All adult citizens should be treated equally and entitled to the same legal rights and benefits regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. It is not up to lawmakers to pluck one sentence from the Bible and pass it into law. This sentence is take from Leviticus, and contains a whole slew of other stipulations, such as; a man shall not sit down in the chair of a mentruating woman. Why is that not being so stringently argued and enforced? You cannot pick and choose. If you legislate religious rules you will not only find many others of various religions and beliefs disenfranchised, but the American way of life and guaranteed freedom that we are so proud of, completely compromised. The government cannot stop Christians from practicing Christianity. And likewise the govt. cannot force Americans to practice Christianity. So for those Christians who believe homosexuality is against their religion: then don't practice it. I am a conservative, and I am also a Christian. But I can live harmoniously with people who hold different beliefs than I do. And as a Christian who's studied the entire text of the Bible, I understand that there are many rules that were written to suit the time, rules that contradict other rules. Bigamy, for instance, was practiced throughout the Bible and yet is now illegal. The bottom line is there should always be a separation of church and state. And to Christians against homosexuality: study the text from which it came: Leviticus. Then ask yourself if you are against all of the other prohibitions in that same text and are ready to have them legislated as well. There is not legal issue with a church not recognizing a marriage as lawful. But for the government to not recognize two consenting adults as lawfully wed and allot them the same recognition as other couples is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

God defined marriage in the beginning as one man and one woman (Genesis 1-3). There is no such thing as 'same-sex' marriage in God's eyes. Never has been a 'same-sex' marriage and there never will be - regardless of what man attempts to do. To the degree that a society rejects God's word is the degree to which man rejects normal marriage.

God clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, in the Bible. The moral code of the country should prevail. Like it or not, homosexuality IS a sin no matter how you spin it.

God is not our creator, nor is a god the creator of our laws. We live under and are protected from religion by a secular Constitution. Marriage is defined by people who wish to marry. Our Constitution prohibits the Federal and State governments from passing laws that discriminate against any group of citizens.

I believe God defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Neither federal nor state govermne ts have any business defining marriage in any other way.

Marriage is an institution involving the union of a man and a woman. This institution is from God. Any government and it's people that changes it is defying and mocking God. God will not be mocked and anyone doing so will pay a heavy price.

"Marriage" has some overlapping values when applied to an institution between one member of each sex as it does for two members of the same sex, however, only a marriage between one member of each different sex can produce children. Marriage is solely an institution to protect the relationship between two adults that conceive children, as specified in DOMA.

I think marriage should be defined/limited to human-to-human. The second we say that two consenting adults don't have the same rights because they are the same gender is the same time we have to outlaw interracial marriage. You may say it's not the same thing, but in the very recent past we looked at it the same. Stop government infringement on my individual rights! The pursuit of happiness didn't have a "unless you are a different race/gender/sexual orientation clause."

I believe that God should define marriage. This country was supposedly based on Divine principles; however, the problem with the tradition of God governing our country is that when the country was founded, it only used God to support its own aims. Today, we have come into a more fuller knowledge and understanding of who God is, but the country has taken off into various paths where morality is concerned because we, as a nation, have grown and expanded where diversity is concerned. If we are to be a nation of people serving various Gods, then we must consider that as we move forward and make or amend laws concerning the people. However, if we are to have a nation based on one God, then we need to consider the convictions and rules laid out by the one God. I'm not sure how we will fix America, but if we do not, the entire country is on the wrong path morally. We are worried about being on the wrong path financially and otherwise, but we really have a larger issue at stake here. How do we unify America around what we believe in. If we cannot find common ground, the future will be filled with opportunities like these, rehearing, reconsidering, reproposing, and reamending traditional laws that have defined and structured our nation for centuries. I believe in traditional marriage in America. I believe in God. I don't think we ought to change marriage laws in America. HOWEVER, because of the diversity of our nation, I do think that we should introduce new laws in this country that would 1) protect same sex partnerships 2) give them benefits under the law, and 3) prevent discrimination and injustices against them. Let's not redefine marriage in this country. Rather let's focus on giving those who live nontraditional lives fair opportunity to succeed here. If they are big enough and large enough in number to fight for it, let us here them. And when/if you need my voice in Washington, I will always be available to help my country move forward. Thank you Mr. Forbes! Latorial Faison Poet, Author & Educator (a constituent of Courtland, VA living on Yongsan Army base in S. Korea)

Marriage is a Biblical construct that predates human government. It has been recognized by government for tax purposes because Biblical marriage (the union of one man and one woman) is the mechanism through which human capital is created and perpetuates the society. Homosexual union does not contribute to this end. In fact, its natural consequence is reduced lifespan on average and a additional cost to address the aids epidemic. I oppose gay marriage; however if the Government makes the choice that a homosexual relationship needs to be recognized in the law in order to protect basic rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness including property rights), then it should be given a different name (i.e., civil union). God will judge our country, but at least we will not conflate the term marriage with civil union when we stand in judgement for our actions.

God has already defined the divine institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Any perversion of this definition, as recorded in Holy Scripture, is termed an abomination by God Himself. This is certainly not politically correct today, but God's truth is immutable.

Marriage is an institution involving a man and a woman. This institution is from God. Any government and it's people that changes it is defying and mocking God. God will not be mocked and anyone doing so will pay a heavy price.

The Author of marriage should define marriage. Marriage was instituted by God, not man. he is it's Author, Protector and Defender. "For this cause (marriage), a Man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together (in Holy matrimony) let no man tear assunder (OR redefine). I believe to do so will bring about consequences from God Himself.

I think the term "Marriage" should be used to described for a man and woman; something like "Committed Union", "Enduring Union", etc. for same sex couples.

Marriage should be "defined" as a union between two consenting adults. Bringing the Judeo-Christian concept of God into what essentially is a civil right violates the (religious) establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, the 14th amendment guarantees the "equal protection" of the law to all U S citizens. Denial of civil rights to citizens violates this amendment.

In the very beginning God created all things, including man and woman. He instituted marriage with the first union between Adam and Eve. The Constitution of the United States, is actually a Christian document. If original documents are researched and studied, it is very plain that the United States of America began as a Christian Nation. If a person pays close attention to the language used in the Declaration of Independence, other government documents of that day and also many of the written arguments for or against issues, it becomes very clear that the original intent of our first leaders was to obey God Almighty; the God of the Bible. I have nothing against people who think same sex marriage is okay. I speak up against it because dire consequences comes with choosing to disobey our Creator. God gives us all a chance to have eternal life with Him in heaven someday through Jesus Christ, but it is a choice that each of us has to make. We can either accept His forgiveness and follow Him, or choose not to. When a person goes against what is right according to Almighty God, they are rejecting the offer for eternal life and forgiveness of sins. It is a very dangerous place to be.

Years ago, the US Navy had to set up Federal Housing to ensure Asian / Caucasian marriages were not interfered with because of existing laws of the Commonwealth. I'm tired of some people picking and choosing which of the Bible to adhere to, if we need to refer to the Bible lets remember that Slavery was fine, Abraham had multiple wives and disobedient children were killed. Times change, and quite frankly, there are much more important issues Congress needs to be concentrating on than worrying what's happening in someone's bedroom. How about fixing the Debt Ceiling??

Sir - marriages are contracts. Judeo-Christian theology holds marriage as a covenant - or contract - between the two people getting married and God. But it IS a contract. As a general rule, contract law is covered under the law (commercial code (UCC), etc.) As such, the Federal Government can set standards and, as I understand it, the states can establish specific exceptions to it by order of their legislatures. In those instances where the Congress has decided their are overarching national interests, the Congress can establish rules that the states Must follow. The point is that it is a legislative process, not one driven by courts and in the case of federal courts, unelected judges. Applying the same rules to marriage would yield that 1) it is a contract, so the people - not the courts - should agree to the specific definition; 2) the people would act through their legislatures, and 3) if Congress so decided, it could define the parameters of this specific type of contract - and not be subject to judicial whim. And, of course, Congress has already decided under the Defense of Marriage Act. Which would mean that it is now incumbent upon the Executive Branch to enforce the law. v/r Pete

Again, a minor issue. If people of same sex want to marry, that is fine with me. Let them live in naivite. If it doesn't work out, let them deal with alimony, custody disputes, child support, property settlements, and assist in clogging up the family courts with divorce cases as do heterosexual couples. I do not believe in "SPECIAL RIGHTS" either. If same sex "domestic partners" can be added to insurances and qualify for tax breaks, without being married, then why cannot hetero "domestic partners" qualify for the same if they are not married?........But why are we talking about this sort of thing again, when this country NEEDS A BUDGET after 5 years and not STOP GAP or CR's, a government running on duplicitous committees, departments, agencies and divisions of government and federal employees have not seen a pay raise for the past 3 years, as prices for food, clothing, and necessary goods continue to climb.......It is time to get back to GOVERNING A PROSPEROUS NATION and stop playing "kick the can" every 2 or 3 months...

God defined marriage--between a man and a woman. End of discussion. Government has no right to "re-define" it.

Church and state should remain separate. Religion has no place in a marriage contract. Keep the two separate. It is not the governments business to determine to whom a person wants to marry. Nor is it the religious organizations to try to persuade the government to try to impose legislation on the people when it comes to marriage.

Marriage for the establishment of family/procreation is clearly defined by our Judeo/Christian heritage/history. I agree that we are trying to make apples into oranges when we try to make the religious marriage ceremony of a husband and wife the same as the civil union between two people. I personally believe that marriage is one of each sex. However, I can understand the dilemma & heartbreak when there are no considerations in the time of crisis that "legally" permits the two people who have loved/cared/supported each other to have the "legal benefits" of the union they have chosen.

Marriage is set by God and Nature's God and if the government is going to back anything, they need to back life.

What difference does it make?...who does it hurt?.......Besides those couples, whether same sex or hetero, who end up in divorce court, custody disputes and financial disputes........Let them go through the legal hassles too, if it doesn't work out......But why are we talking about this upcoming in March, when you have YET another Stop Gap or CR fight, can't say budget, because this country no longer has one, coming up at the same time. How about asking your constituents to assist you with REAL budget ideas........

NO "marriage" should be recognized by the Govt. ALL unions should be civil unions for the purposes of legality and if you want to be recognized by a church, you go to that church. PERIOD. What part of separation of church and state don't we understand, now, in the 21st century? This solves everything and yours or anyone else's personal religious beliefs have anything to do with how people define their relationships, nor should they. The DOMA is based on a religious predication(and inaccurate historical delusion of "traditional marriage"), so how exactly did that make it into civil law at all? V/R Paul D. von Nahme SGT, USA

I believe that our Govmnt. should follow the dictates of the Word of God Almighty just like their predecessors did in writing the constitution. I really cant believe that they believe that men who valued God's law and ideas so much would actually not include Him in what ever we would set ourselves to do. I guess all people do have the right to their own wills just as God made man to do, but it is shameful that they want the rest of us to validate the very things that our Maker says He hates.

This country was founded on Biblical principles. The founders prayed to the one true God. Marriage for 2000 years has been between one man and one woman. There should be no other way to produce children. Man's way has only produced heartache.

This country has been in existence for about 237 years, and marriage has been around for over 6,000 years, and we know that ONLY because it is written in the Bible. Therefore, the document that originally defined the term "marriage," should be the same that defines it today. What makes us so wise to think that we are now enlightened? And...where were all of these people fighting to change marriage 20 years ago? I couldn't say it better than Genesis 2:24 - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV) So if you want to create some sort of other institution to encourage a sexual activity that is extremely dangerous medically...and by the way, one that can't naturally reproduce offspring....then go ahead and see if anybody votes for it. But don't redefine marriage. And please...for the sake of all of the African Americans who suffered greatly due the the color of their skin....PLEASE do not try to argue that civil rights for those of a different race is the same as civil rights for homosexuals who choose to engage in unnatural sexual relations. That is a ridiculous argument.

God has already created the definition of marriage. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God" is all that needs to be adhered to.

I am appalled at the number of people that seem to think "whatever they want, that suits them" is automatically the way it should be. This world was formed, and this nation (the United States of America) was established by the hand of God Almighty! This country's values have been as God sanctioned from the beginning. And, that is why we have always been the greatest nation in the world! Now we are going "to Hell in a hand-basket" because of people wanting their way, and abandoning God's will. Our governmental leaders ignore the values that this great nation was built on, and make a mockery of the very values that made us so strong and respected. It's time to "wake up" and acknowledge that there is only one supreme being in control.

GOD makes very clear in Genesis chapter 2:20-24

Mother Nature and the Bible have had this under control for thousands of years - we can't change that and we're damned if we do.

God has already defined marriage between man and woman

I do not believe ANY government should define marriage or use the term marriage in government related activities. Marriage should be relegated to a religious status and the individual churches can define who can and cannot be married in their own faith community The Government bestowed rights/privelages/responsibilities of Marriage, should be moved into a "Civil Partnership" status that may be entered into by ANY 2 consenting adults.

I think it should be left up to the State. You guys in Congress have much more important things to work. That's my opinion. I do think it's important, especiallyto those that want to marry the same sex, but there people out here struggling to make ends meet because of the shape of the economy. This needs to be the priority. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my opinions. Rickey

The God that institued marriage, the very God that created the everything that exists outside of himself, the God that that setup governments for ruling over us has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The Federal and State governments job is to maintain and enforce what God has already decreed.

The God that institued marriage, the very God that created the everything that exists outside of himself, the God that that setup governments for ruleing over us has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The Federal and State governments job is to maintain and enforce what God has already decreed.

The God that institued marriage, the very God that created the everything that exists outside of himself, the God that that setup governments for ruleing over us has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The Federal and State governments job is to maintain and enforce what God has already decreed.

Marriage has already been defined by God .Marriage (the taking of a wife )was begun by Him. If two people of the same sex wish to have a permanent union, then it should be a civil union. I think that should be a state decision.

According to the bible, God already made that decision when He put ADAM, (man) and EVE (woman) in the garden of eden. I do NOT believe the supreme court has the authority to contridict HIM

GOD did that with Adam and Eve.

It's not a question of whether We Think it is constitutional or not; that's a technical legal question. What is indisputable is that none of the Founders, not even the philanderer Jefferson, would have agreed to undermine the natural basis of all human society, i.e. marriage and family. Not even pagan Greece and Rome did that. Dr. Diane Moczar, Historian.

God through his teachings in our Holy Bible defines a marriage. That is what is wrong with our country; we have turned away from our beliefs to be "politically correct". We need to stand our ground and go back to our founding belief's: we speak English, we follow our Christian belief's and worship our one true God, we need to put him back in our schools and government!

Why is the Federal or State government involved in defining marriage at all? Marriage is not an issue that needs to involve government. Marriage is an agreement between 2 parties. It does not need government in the middle. God has already defined marriage. The government should stay out.

God has already made the law, marriage is between one man and one woman. The both state and federal governments should acknowledge Gods law and continue to go with his law.

I find it interesting that every time the state does not like religion they say separation of church and state. A line from Thomas Jefferson written before he had read the constitution. The church is the one who should define marriage because God instituted marriage by creating Adam and Ever and told them to populate the earth. If two gays want to enter into a contract under state and federal law they can. To call it marriage is an abomination to the believers and should not be a state issue.

I believe in separation of church and state. Marriage laws and it's definition should be a civil matter, ruled by "all men (and women) are created equal". Gay marriage with its legal rights (and responsibilities) should be allowed according to federal and statae laws and judges should marry them. (I don't know if this should be federal or state jurisdiction.) God created gay people as well as the rest of us. Who am I to judge if HE made a mistake or if He has some kind of twisted humor? We are taught God loves us ALL and we should "do unto others as we do unto ourselves". But If churches do not believe in gay marriage, they should be allowed to refuse to marry them in their churches.

To the people who are objecting to same sex marriage because of their religion that is your personal prerogative. If you think gay marriage is wrong you are free to not marry someone of the same sex. There is nothing in the US Constitution that suggests that anyone has the right to limit same sex marriage. In fact there are clauses in the Constitution that suggest it already is legal. For example the 14th Amendment says "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Without some kind of cogent, weighty legal argument or an ability to show that same sex marriage will cause irreparable harm to our country you will lose this fight because the USA is a place of tolerance, inclusion, and freedom. To J. Randy Forbes I ask that if your only opposition is based on religious grounds than you should sit on the sidelines and remain quiet. I don't want someone who is supposed to represent me actively fighting to create a new class of untermenschen in our society. If you could do this to gay people what will stop you from doing it to other groups you find personally distasteful?

1st Question: Defense Marriage Act should be redefine to include one’s faith to practice marriage as they see fit. 2nd Question: G-d, the Creator

DOMA is just discriminatory. Its purpose is to deny gay people access to certain legal rights and protections. If it really "defended" marriage, it would address, and criminalize, divorce.

Our laws should not be defined by the laws or ordinance's of ANY religion,or else we are by definition being biased,prejudice, and partisan.There are different definition's of marriage,one being derived from the rite's of religion,and another as adjoining to different things.Why further complicate the situation by trying to the difference,can we all not just enjoy the same freedom's without having to separate or segregate,by inclusion or exclusion by law?

America is a Union of sovereign States therefore both, to have peace and harmony, must agree, to what was defined when said union was forged namely, marriage is between a man and a woman. The fact that said defintion is in the Constitution proves the Union is not adulterous but a marriage. To give autonomy to decided to what "wedded" them is to create disharmony and divorce, bringing to mind Lincoln's famous words: "A house divided cannot stand."

God is the ultimate, supreme, sovereign authority and He has already clarified that marriage is between a man and a woman---nothing else. If America wants to prosper, we should submit to His Word and not man's. Man has become wise in his own eyes, thinking he knows better than God. That is the sure way of distruction!! And by the way, God is not a religion---He is God, creator and sustainer of the universe.

I think it is such a waste of time & money to even argue. Love between two people should be between them. If they want to be married keep the Government out of bedrooms. All married couples should have SAME rights. When government tries to " do religion " it is sad.

DOMA is a ridiculous waste of Legislative time and treasure, fix the Debt Limit and the horrendous Budget issues. I also have a very hard time with the notion of a "Christian" nation, our Founding Fathers used terms like "Providence, God and The Almighty" NOT Christ. I believe they were much smarter and determined that ALL Religions should be free to be practiced or ignored as the individual sees fit. To use "Christian" without some historical evidence is is erroneous at best and arrogant at worst.

There is only one source for the definition and understanding of what constitutes marriage. The One who created marriage has defined it. Marriage is the union in body, soul and spirit of two individuals for the purpose of fruitful multiplication. It is necessary that they be of opposite gender for that purpose - a male and female. Laws may be enacted to support that definition and to protect that purpose. Because laws at the state level have been compromised it is now needful to protect the sanctity of marriage at the federal level. But that effort now also is compromised by the invasive and unconstitutional actions of the courts. America's only recourse at this point is a Constitutional Amendment.

Marriage was defined by God, the creator of all mankind, over 6,000 years ago in the Bible in Genesis 3:22-25 when He performed the first marriage between Adam and Eve. That has not changed. The only marriage God recognizes is between one man and one woman.

God defined marriage more than 6,000 years ago when He performed the first marriage between Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:22-25). That has not changed. The only marriage God recognized is between one man and one woman.

It is very encouraging to see that many, many people recognize that the United States is NOT a theocracy -- we are governed by the Constitution of the United States, not the Christian Bible. Those of you who believe that the writers of the bible. or God, which ever you choose, defined marriage for all time as between a man and a woman are free to continue to do so. Your right to believe what you will will not change if the unconstitutional DOMA is overturned. And since this is a civil rights issue, I personally do not believe that each state should decide for itself what course to follow -- if the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960's and 70's had been subject to the vote of white people, not just here in the south but in some other states as well, do you think they would have passed at that time?

Marriage is already defined by the higher power that fewer and fewer Americans identify with. However, a civil union appears to be nothing more than financial arrangement between two people. A civil union does not a marriage make. On another note, it is interesting that as hard as same sex folks are fighting for this "marriage" right they are already divorcing at (in my mind) is an alarming rate. Interesting.

The Govt of my beloved republic, nor any state for that matter should be defining "marriage" at all. "Marriage" is a religious contract and should stay in the church, and the church shouldn't have ANY say in who is or isn't in a LEGAL union. Here's the fix (and it really is just this simple), ALL unions are civil unions as far as the "State" (Any and all Govts for those less particular to nuance) then, should you desire a religious contract, you go to the church and get one. But, the Govt has nothing to do with that, and the church has ZERO to do with who is legally recognized as joined. DOMA is based upon a religious predication and therefore automatically unconstitutional. Fix this Crap

Marriage is a contract not a sacrament. The state government establishes the rules for divorce or dissolution of that contract. If same sex partners wish to enter into the marriage contract they should be so able. All the religious posturing is so much bullshit.

God instituted marriage with the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is the official union of one man to one woman - recognized by society both by law and by religious institutions. All societies that have approved homosexuality have ultimately fallen as a result. While mankind has always sinned, and disobeyed God's laws, that does not mean that a government should sanction it. Unfortunately, there are many in the USA who want to sanction it to the point of redefining it. If we want God to bless America, perhaps America as a nation, needs to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

I believe only the participants in a particular marriage have the right to decide whether it's a marriage or not - as long as they are mentally competent adults.

I feel you should be able to love the person you are attracted to. That should not be by and state or govmt body The State and US Govt have more imprtant things to worry about than who I love and marry, like debt, peace, and getting along and not your personal agenda Thanks

I am concerned that with all of the serious problems facing our Nation today, we are concerning ourselves with DOMA. What two people do in the privacy of their own home is as little the government's business as what kind of gun I own as long as I have passed a criminal and mental competency check. The Fiscal Cliff is a can kicked down the road until March, where once again uncertainty will cause market fluctuations, erode the strength of the dollar and infringe upon small business from being able to make long-term decisions on expansion and hiring. I am a Republican because I believe in Ronald Reagan's compassionate conservatism, where we do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. We need to focus on controlling spending by controlling wasteful spending beyond our means both on defense and social programs equally. Arguing about DOMA, which in the greater scheme of things does NOTHING to improve America's diplomatic stature, economic prosperity, and military strength, is nothing more than a distraction. Mr. Forbes, I voted for you, I came to your town hall meeting in Chesapeake last year, and I believe you are a patriot that truly cares for this Nation and your constituents. I'm asking you now to please tell your fellow congressmen that America needs them to refocus on what's important for the benefit of ALL Americans and STOP this partisan infighting that has our government paralyzed while we split hairs over nonsense. Thanks and God bless.

To answer Stanley Feuer, you are absolutely correct sir in that a national standard is required in terms of defining survivor benefits, dependents benefits and so on. Thus it should be defined as two people. Period. Anything else violates a strict separation of Church and State. The duty of our government and its laws is to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in that order) insofar as those pursuits do not infringe on any other citizen's rights to do the same. Once government starts imparting moral values, where will it stop? Democracy and mob rule are NOT the same thing.

Our government and Constitution was founded on "one nation under God" I believe in God and the word of God, marriage is between a man and a woman. If others choose to live together as a couple, it is their right, however, they should not have the legal rights as a man and woman.

Any civil ruler must know what he is. He is a minister of God for justice, and has been placed in his position of public trust to enforce God's law, Romans 13:1,4. Respecting marriage, it is the duty of civil rulers to abide by God's definition of marriage. Marriage did not come about by social compact, nor agreement of the majority. It is a reality of existence and put in place by God. Neither the Federal nor the State governments have any authority to define marriage. Civil rulers must learn that they are not gods, who determine reality. The are creatures who are answerable to the Creator. This is acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence. If the civil government is the highest authority, then we need to apologize to the United Kingdom for 1776. If the civil government is the highest authority above which there is no appeal then liberty is a myth and tyranny inevitable.

I believe their should be a way for same sex to have some type of commitment, maybe not a "marriage" per se. It does not have to be a religious ceremony. Just some type of legal one so they can have the same benefits as married people. Heterosexual people do not have to have a religious ceremony to have these benefits.

God, the Creator of all, already defined marriage when He created the institution. Our nation was founded on biblical principles. So, it flow logically and legally, that the United States should define marriage from biblical authority.

Regarding establishment of religion, the Danbury Baptists were not concerned about which religion, but rather about which Christian religion. "Separation of church and state," in Jefferson's letter (it does not appear in the Constitution or its amendments), is not the same as "Separation of church from state."

I would go back to the one who started it all. Our God of the universe is very clear in His Word, the Bible, how and why He designed and created men and women differently for our benfit and set up shop involving marriage between one of each. Period. His plans are always the best. Have a great day, Lori

Ultimately the issue must be decided by the Supreme Court in order to apply the same standard to all citizens - Equal Protection Under Law. If "marriage" is merely a religious institution without additional state benefits, all is well. If benefits are being denied to a group solely on the basis of sexual orientation, we have a problem. For some, the issue seems to be the terminology. They want "marriage" reserved for a union between opposite genders. If they are willing to accept "civil unions" with the same rights and protections granted to heterosexual couples, most of us should be able to live with that - "...a rose by any other name...". Others are vehemently opposed to any union between same-sex partners. This is generally based on a strong religious belief that they are absolutely entitled to hold. I respect their right to hold that belief, although I disagree completely with their conclusions. I will not pass judgement on them, even if they refuse to return the favor - you know who you are. After reading all of the posts on this subject to date, it is clear that some who refer to the Bible and the Constitution have read neither. Others appear to have done some light reading, and have drawn hasty conclusions. I do not pretend to be able to interpret either to anyone's satisfaction other than my own - those roles are reserved for the clergy and the courts. If the states were allowed to decide the issue of slavery, what would have been the result? An institution that we (most of us anyway) find absolutely abhorrent today, may still exist. Fortunately, our Constitution was designed to evolve (through amendments) to address issues that arise over time, and our government was divided into separate branches to keep the others in check. Thankfully, this issue will be decided based on facts, not beliefs.

Mr. Forbes, God has already spoken and scripture is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. It should surely be in the individual state's power to declare this truth.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. By biblical definitions, men marry women, women marry men. There are a lot of people out there who accept sexual deviance and do not believe the Bible. Let them have a civil ceremony, rather than a religious one.

The only people who should define marriage are the people entering into the marriage contract regardless of race or gender

I believe each individual should define marriage as it exists in their own life. Accountability lies with the individual. Government should definitely not determine what a marrige is, or a family.

I am gay and I do NOT think gay people should be married. Gay people are far too promiscuous And should never get married. 90 percent of gay people should never be allowed to raise children. I have been around gay people for over 35 years now and I am in my fifties. I no longer live the lifestyle but.... God intended Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I will say it again gay people should not be allowed to get married.!!

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States must be looked at as one document. The Declaration explains the Constition. In it we have certain inalianable rights-given to us by God. And no man can take those away from us. Marriage is one of those rights. Marraige can only be between one man and one woman. It is the governments responsibility to defend those rights. And to insure our religious freedom from anyone who would challange thoese rights as defined by God -even from the government itself.

What Rachael and Thomas said. Keep the politicians out of the bedroom,. Look around you, you've got better things to do. It is defined by the two individuals entering the relationship. You, Mr. Congressman, are a hypocrite for even considering defining it.

Since marriage licenses are issued in the staate where the ceremonies are preformed be they civil ceremonies or religious ceremonies, each state should defend the marriage law. It has been the province of the state power by tradition, and the Constitution of the United States delegates any powers not specifically given to the federal government as belonging to the states. However, I agree that marrigae is between a 1 man and 1 woman, and if the state will not defend the traditional marriage, then the federal government must define marriage. The result is that the federal government becomes more powerful and the states lose powers that they have traditionally had. The danger is that the Constitution is seen as a Living, Changing document, rather than being interpeted literally as our founders intended to preserve our freedoms.

I think the Federal gov't has bigger fish to fry! Have you heard this nation is in serious financial trouble or is that just a rumor? Seems like if it were really a crisis, we wouldn't have time to talk about a subject that has such a high failure rate!!!

Marriage was defined years ago by God first and our Christian roots in this country second. It is a shame that we've made this an issue when is never should of been one. Let us not be afraid to stand up for what is right even for political gain.

Government should start getting out of recognizing marriage from a benefits perspective. With benifits out of the picture, Government should have no concerns.

Marriage was defined as between a man and a woman by God years ago. Our country was founded on christianity. I'm stunned when I see how many states go against whats right and vote for gay marriage. Look around - doesn't take long to figure out how our country got in the mess we're in. I pray politicians will do whats morally right and not whats politically correct for re-election purposes.

As an adult, with Christian morals, I really do not need some pathetic atheist telling me what constitutes a marriage. However, in light of the ubiquitous stupidity of the average American citizen, it seems that a Federal edict may be relevant. I do not see the declaration of marriage, between one man and one woman, as being an adherence to some particular denomination. None the less, when the Feds want to use my money to support that to which I am opposed (remember I am a tax payer), I have every right in the world to say where it is going. I am not big on supporting homosexuals, just because they choose an abnormal life style. Obviously sexual intercourse, between 2 men or 2 women, does not result in reproduction. In that this was the original purpose, how does one justify this anomaly? At one time, we lived by the Declaration of Independence, Amendments and the Bill of Rights. Many would have us believe that this is passé. It is not. Until the Constitution is altered by the people, it is still in affect. Should the general public agree to the decrees of our current president, who is a known Muslim and against all that we stand for, then we will have a Socialist government, where anything goes. Do we need someone to tell us what is right, apparently, in that so few citizens seem to have a clue. Without a Standard, there is no anchor in life and we shall go where ever the wind blows.

Good morning! I believe that marriage, in governmental context, is simply a legal union between two people. In a religious context, it would fall to whatever particular doctrine anyone's particular church teaches. Since our government doesn't dictate our personal religious preferences, I don't believe they should dictate our union preferences with respect to gender. To differentiate a marriage from a civil union is just a matter of semantics. As such, I feel our government should abandon any further pursuit of any law that prohibits same sex marriages. Thank you very much for considering these thoughts!

I am a believer of the Holy Bible and in it; this action is against his word. However through his word my assignment is the love my neighbor, and because of this I will allow the Lord the handle this in due time. The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen. 2:18, 21-24

Let the Bible define Merriage.

While we are not and do not want to be a theocracy, our "Constitution was meant for a moral and religious people and is wholly unsuitable to any other" (the view of the founding fathers). That marriage is the union of man and woman is found not only in numerous religions but also in many cultures and history as well. Our current discussions about sexual orientation is about accepting that which is clearly contrary to nature. It has brought us to the point where many are already arguing to recognize pedophilia. If we continue on this downward spiral, bestiality may well be next. Redefining this as a discussion about civil rights, and using the 'separation of church and state' to marginalize people of faith, will not make right that which is wrong no matter how eloquent the arguments. It will only make us very wrong if we accept these new definitions.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe that marriage should be between a man an a woman and that defining such by law is constitutional based on our founding and reliance upon our Judeo-Christian Heritage. What I don't agree with is that the government should dictate that someone must be "married" for the purposes of benefits, inheritances, etc. A person should be able to designate whomever they wish as a beneficiary/heir. For the government to require "marriage" for such things is wrong. Marriage is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN ordained by GOD to care for one another with love and fidelity and to raise the offspring of that union in the knowledge of and obedience to God. The government sticks its nose into because because it can tax it by requiring licenses fees and so forth. So as far as the government is concerned, it should not preside over any type of union in the sense of a marriage, but rather just view all unions by consenting adults as a contractual partnership and leave "marriage" to God.

the traditional view of marriage was a business one, not a religious one. it was used to acquire more wealth, which is why so many marriages were between older men and young girls. powerful families wanted to ally themselves so they sold off their young daughters to gain more wealth and influence. do we really want to return to that 'traditional' view of marriage? face it, we do not live in a theocracy and the founders are rolling in their grave at the thought of religion dictating GOVERNMENT policy.

I believe anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to be joined in a partnership. Call it what you will (Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, etc.), but it should be equal. Those who wish to be 'married' in a church may choose to take it one step further with a religeous ceremony. To deny any one group of citizens the same priviledges and protections afforded to others because of a hang-up on terminololgy is unacceptable. Strike 'marriage' from the civic language completely and replace it with something universally accepted and recognized.

Marriage has always been defined as being between and man and woman. In this case, God has decided.

The question is not whether the Act is constitutional but whether it is moral, whether it is rignt in the sight of God. There are times when the Constitution must take a back seat to Higher Law and this is one of them.

The Federal Government should be in the business of protecting civil rights such that Americans are free to marry whom they choose. I should be able to select my life-partner withOUT the Government interferring in that choice! I look for the Government to protect that right for ALL competent-party individuals.

Marriage has already been defined by God as one man, one woman. It is not up to the government to redefine it. A man and a man cannot procreate, neither can a woman and a woman, it takes both. If we want to continue the human race, we need to remember that. If a man loves a man, and a woman loves a woman, so be it, but don't push your beliefs on the rest of the country, and don't expect to have the same rights as a heterosexual marriage.

I do not believe it is the government's responsibility to define marriage. I believe that people are motivated to do this for religious purposes, and I think this violates the concept of church and state. I am a Christian, and I have a right to my beliefs, but I do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Makes no difference if you look from a religious for common sense approach. It has a hearfelt as well as legal meaning. Federal government does not need to define it; they already have more on their plate than they are capable of handling. I would have deferred to the state governments, but with their insistence on following the federal government (example, economy and budgets), they are not capable either. It must be left up to the voters of individual states. This is definitely not a one fits all.

GOD has defined marriage - for the whole world. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:27, 28 NKJV) Looks self explanatory to me.

With the separation of Church and State, the Federal Government should allow civil unions to all people who want to form a partnership. Marriage is a Holly Sacerment and would be defined by the church in which it was performed.

Marriage should be defined as it is by the Word of God (The Bible), not by the government. They have proven that they don't know what they or doing, nor do they care about upholding Godly morals.

It is sad that California's Proposition 8 has been halted by the courts. Our government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and the vote on Prop 8 should be honored as just that. Iit is sickening that the courts are trying to run our country, over and above the will of the people. This is a state matter, and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction. Furthermore, our clergy should never be pressured to perform marriages that conflict with their own religious convictions. The purpose of a marriage union was for perpetation of the human race, and same sex couples are seriously lacking the capability to perform that function!

I think God did a very good job of defining marriage.

The constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and the actual definition of what a marriage is will shortly be a question that the 9 members of the Supreme Court will rule on despite the absolute truth that our Creator alone created, designed and defined this inalienable right since the beginning of time. Sadly however God is only identified in our Declaration of Independence and not specifically mentioned in our U.S. Constitution which is the basis on which this decision must be made. For this reason, this whole question in at least one sense appears to be a rhetorical one while on the one hand it appears to subject marriage to judicial review that is probably unwarranted. Afterall, most marriage vows contain the words: "what God has brought together, let no (wo)man pull asunder." Yet despite His Divine Design, origin and supervision, far too many of these same marriages end in divorce court often enriching a whole industry of divorce attorneys at the same couple's expense. Nonetheless, on the narrow question of the constitutionality of DOMA, it saddens me to ponder that these nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices even believe that they can somehow substitute their own opinions on this law or the very definition of marriage. So I await the Court's decision not only on the actual disputed ruling of the lower court homosexual judge who should have recused himself rather than writing his opinion that there was no "rational reason" to retain the historic and traditional definition of marriage but also to see what other legal agruments will be espoused regarding the federal law itself including whether what one journalist suggested about two decades ago of whether the states should permanently prohibit couples from even marrying who live together first, since it is sadly the major predictor of whether a relationship will even last.

It amazes me how so many people are quick to slander those with whom have an issue of keeping the sanctity of marriage intact. Calling people bigots or homophobics(a fabricated word that has no basis in science or etymology). Even going as far as to put down and demean those that have a biblical reasoning and background. Shame on you. You do little to further your view with such slanderous repugnance. You do more to create strife and you should be ashamed that your biased and subjective view is so hypocritical. The matter at hand for DOMA to me is very important for the furthering of our society. Studies have shown that a household with a mother and father give a child the best chances to not only survive in this world the best but to perform better overall at life. Also, I am talking about mother and father in the GENDER sense and not any sense that may have been reinterpreted to normalize a lifestyle. A child needs a direct MASCULINE AND FEMININE influence! Marriage does this and the government wants to promote this because it helps to create a morally palatable society. Somewhere along the lines people have twisted up what marriage means anyway. Heterosexuals are a big part to blame for this in that young and ignorant kids get married for the wrong reasons like the ceremony of marriage is just some big joke. My fellow millenial generation is really blowing the door off of what it means to be married. I have at least 5-6 people I personally know that got married young because of social pressure and are now divorced/and or remarried and divorced again. Ironically..the people I know who waited to get married and have a committed relationship are doing very well financially and socially as opposed to the young married ones. This is not something to be taken lightly..marriage is for life! People sit up there and wish to be married to involve themselves in some mystical fantasy world that is relatable to Hollywood. Fact of the matter is that marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, not related is the best environment to raise a child. You establish a basic order of a family structure and you do little to confuse children in how they should raise their own. Accepting every sort of lifestyle is just the human condition but that doesn't mean we should start making special rights to an institution based in culture and tradition because a financially strong lobbying group(LBGT) that has people in power says so. It makes me sick to my stomach of all the single mothers/fathers I see out there and then you get two "mothers" and two "fathers" who want to raise a child....how? Two women or even one can't properly raise a man..two men can't properly raise a woman to the benefit of society. Why is it such a commonality that people from broken homes(read: dysfunctional single parent or unhappy married parent homes) always are so much more likely to commit crimes or do worse in society? Why should we handicap these children and just put up our hands in the air and say "Oh, okay..it happens..lets just forgive it." Why don't we take an action to prevent it and educate it. We allow such fringe ideals to start to take over and the slippery slope begins. The rights that many people wish for is not given to single people for a reason. Marriage(read FAMILIES) is to help further us as a species and we do this by giving our children the best type of rearing available. Should we afford special rights for incestual relationships to occur? It can be between two people and many of the discussion points used to dissuade those against disagree with same-sex marriage can be used to argue for such a thing. The only problem is that incest relationships or people don't have the lobbying power or organization. How about polygamy? Why not multiple people? How about underage marriage? We should draw the line and seek to reeducate and teach people what the true purpose of marriage is. Just because a person wants to be in a relationship outside of what is considered normal..doesn't mean we have to acknowledge it with rights. Marriage should not be altered to give rise to those who can't meet it's basic requirements of morality and sanctity. A lifestyle CHOICE is no reason to change things to help to keep us grounded.

It is discrimination whether you are in favor of it or not. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean that you should deny someone else their own personal and private happiness. Stay out of the bedroom, Congress, or we may take a peak into yours!

Yes, I am a Bible thumper. Obviously, Jennifer, you have not studied the History of the United States. We were founded on Christian principles, with the Bible as the foundation. Marriage IS defined as one man and one woman. As our country continues to spin out of control and turn away from God, HE is going to smite this nation. Mark my words.

Marriage has already been defined as union between one man and one woman since the beginning of civilization and is based on "the laws of nature and of nature's god" as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the founding fathers agreed to since the beginning of our Republic. Modern relativists have no right to redefine marriage according to their whims for the benefit of a very small minority of people. If same-sex marriage was confined only to the bedroom, we would not be having this discussion. However same-sex marriage advocates are trying to force their definition onto the rest of us and force us to say there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage. In the process they are also trying to limit our freedom of speech and religion just because we oppose special rights for same-sex couples and believe that children are benefitted most by having a father and a mother (as many studies have demonstrated). I also ask that same-sex marriage advocates refrain from public name calling just as I do for those who disagree with me.

Congressman Forbes is a member of the last bastion against progressives who put the Constitution below them. Those who berate his stand and performance on critical issues should realize they are setting themselves up for more Government control of their lives. Of course, they are always campaigning, whether it be for their own benefit or for some liberal politician. We conservatives take a break after elections and live our lives through the freedoms we enjoy. Most of us want our children and grandchildren to prosper as we have, not worry about some self-serving individuals who want to co-habit in same-sex relationships. Until one of them can self-conceive, progressives should think twice about changing the order God made in male-female matrimony. Of course if it's all about you and your same-sex partner or your agenda, which is the press-inspired wave we're led to believe, then you should worry about the future of mankind over time.

Truthfully I think the Act is unconstitutional and should be reversed. I do not believe that anyone other than the people should define marriage. I think this needs to be defined by the people in the relationship not the governing bodies or the majority of people. If we are going to make the few the puppets of the many then many laws need to be reversed. You may want to visit this site too! http://www.headwingnut.com

The definition of MARRIAGE has already been defined by our Creator. Unfortunately the current administration believes itself so all powerful enuff as to erode our foundations, values, and even attack and pick on the very constitution that sets us apart from other nations....just to appease the loud platform of a few zealots. They attack only which furthers their socialist agendas. I believe NOONE is against the definition of Civil Union for same sex partners. Is all about entitlements then? Even all my Gay friends are embarrassed that the gov't is stepping into this matter and doing everything possible to divide and conquer a country. A Majority of gays I have spoken with have no want for thisBIG agenda of Obamas' If it appeases everyone then let civil unions have equal rights but is an abomination to call it a marriage which has already been defined. Is an interesting fact of history that all societys that have embraced extreme deviation of values have perished. If california shot it down that speaks volumes that this agendas importance is fabricated at best