Was there another man in the Garden of Eden that Eve could have chosen differently? Or, is the Creation account, symbolic and not literal, as some suggest?

As to the requirement of love in marriage, I always presumed it to be a given. Unfortunately, as is evident in so many marriages, love is an afterthought and not the basis. Does this mean that marriage has "evolved?" No, because even in a "loveless" marriage, it is still the union of male and female, husband and wife. At that, if is not a requirement, then why the push to recognize the "love relationship" of a SS couple? If love has nothing to do with marriage, then why do I hear over and over in defense of SSM, that "love is love?"

Now, althoug polygamy was practiced by some of the patriarchs, it never became normative. In special circumstances, it was allowd, but it never was endorsed. If so, then at what point did it become less favorable and why? How did we go from the "two shall become one" to polygamy and then back again? If the more the merrier, as the saying goes, why wouldn't polygamy have garnered more support?

* * *

There is no love requirement in the marriage law.

Many traditions of marriage have varied, sure, but the core has remained the same. That core in tradition, custom, and law has entailed the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation. Marriage is a social institution and not a contract created and owned by the Government.

We have a government, not the other way around, and no Government owns the foundational social institution of civil society. Marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, from the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and from the both-sexed nature of human community.

SSM, according to the emphasis on gayness by SSMers far and wide, arises from the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over the social institution, over the marriage law, over constitutional jurisprudence, and over all principles of good governance -- private and public alike.

The chasm between the two things -- marriage on one hand and SSM on the other hand -- is huge. A merger would abolish the core meaning of marriage from our laws and culture. That's the outcome of the SSM merger, whether SSM supporters (i.e. SSM[support]ers) are prepared to own it or not.

Such an outcome would be regressive.

Nicholas, you consistently want me to respond to your points while you refuse to address the substance of what I'm saying.

Let me do it, too: Show me where in the Bible it says that marriage should be an agreement between a man and a woman based on love and recognized by the government? Eve did not choose to "marry" Adam. And no marriage in the Bible (or until the 1800s) had anything to do with love. The definition of marriage has always been changing and evolving, and it hasn't been the gays who have changed it.

You might say: Well, it's always been one man and one woman; that hasn't changed. Well, besides the fact that that factually incorrect (you can see even in the Bible that polygyny is rampant, as is childbearing by the maidservants of a man's wife, in addition to just his wife -- after all, they were all his property), there is another key point:

Before marriage became about "love," it was about familial duty, economic arrangement, etc. Under that system, gay people and straight people alike were forced into permanent commitments with people of the opposite sex. Everyone was doing it. But then, straight people started marrying for love. The rules of the game had changed. Now, if love is the basis of marriage, and not familial duty or economic arrangement, it no longer made sense for gays to marry people of the opposite sex: they don't love them. Hence, when heterosexuals changed the definition of marriage, it opened the door for this. I highly doubt that heterosexuals on this site want to go back to the feudal system, despite their claims for "traditional" marriage. I certainly don't!

(Raynd, that goes for you, too. I hardly think that "mother nature" or "Darwin" created the government-designed contract of marriage. Marriage as a formalized government-sponsored contractual agreement is something relatively new in human history.)

He thus confirmed that, as I had said, "Meanwhile, the vote is about marriage. Your [Michael's] remark appears to be about something else."

He has offered no substantive reply to what was asked of him.

For the record, @ November 4, 2009 at 12:34 AM, I asked Michael the following:

Michael, whatever do you mean by “5% of the population”? Please be specific about how the criteria you use to figure that there is some portion of the population “struggling for their rights”.

* * *

As for domestic partnership and civil union, if Michael could justify these measures he would do so without resort to namecalling.

Whenever an SSMer is invited to provide the independent claim, the justificiation, for domestic partnership or civil union status, the response is always about merging nonmarriage with marriage.

The reply never states the core of the relationship type that the SSMer has in mind such that it would be differentiated from nonmarriage.

But the demand for a merger is made anyway -- in the name of gay identity politics. It is not made for the sake of equality nor for the sake of the social institution of marriage.

What is domestic partnership, Michael, such that it merits a special status on par with marital status? Explain the definitive feature(s) of domestic partnership, in your viewpoint, and cite the legal requirements that make the feature(s) mandatory for all who show-up for a license for that.

Failing this, your namecaling is where you stand and not on principle and not on the law and not even on morality -- much less on what you (supposedly) would devine God to mean by the conjugal union of man and woman. You have struck a pose without making a case for your demands.

That's typical of SSMers who argue against marriage rather than for SSM (aka domestic partnership, civil union, etc).

Good luck with that. This is a free nation of free people. We won't stand for fascist demands from on high. If you think homosexuality is great, take it to the people and make your case honestly. You still won't win, and the simple reason is because homosexuality isn't a healthy way to go. It's not good for individuals and it's not good for kids.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the vote in Maine made him angry.

"But more importantly, I am determined that with the anger I feel today from this outcome in Maine, we'll rise ever stronger to demand equal treatment under the law and equal respect for our relationships in Maine, California, New Jersey and every state of the union."

Hate from the HRC??? What no way!!!