Comment from the legal issues from King & Spaulding

Saw this comment from the Washington Examiner from 3rdjersyman

Natural Law undergirds all consideration of constitutional law. Otherwise you merely have opinion or recourse to superstition.

It is patently obvious that heterosexual marriage has been the historical norm for all of human history, and that homosexual marriage is a revolutionary innovation which seeks to overturn the common understanding of the word "marriage" through a judicial fiat, as it has proven unobtainable through democratic means.

No one doubts that there are 1.5 to 3% of the population that engage in homosexual activities. There is also no doubt that there is some percentage of that fraction of the population who desire recognition for bonded relationships, and that there is of that percentage some who seek the sanction they percieve the word marriage imparts.

However, their desire to derange the common understanding ( again historically universal )of marriage as being a union of opposite sexes in support of the biological prime directive, does not force the conclusion that that desire must be fulfilled in the fashion demanded.

It is an injustice to insist that anyone must grow old alone, and there is a great broad middle that is willing to live and let live. Civil Unions or as I imagine "himage" and "herage" obviously serve a social need, but there isn't a shred of support for the notion that anyone who ever put their hand to the US Constitution could or would ever have seen within the cordon of this sacred charter a sanction for the purported right of homosexual "marriage".