“If we are to let the Bible define what “traditional marriage” should look like, then our marriage laws should be amended as such:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/10/12118/336/767/671488

As you know from your general legal studies, marriage is not just a secular civil right but also a secular civil obligation requiring those who are willing to assume both legal and financial obligations for those to whom they have pledged a faithful union. Marriage is therefore as much or more of a common good as it is a civil right.

It is neither a “secular civil right” nor a “secular civil obligation,” at least not in New Jersey the last time I looked. It does have a dual legal nature, though: it is both a contract between two parties and a status conferred by the state. You might well ask what business the state has in conferring that status altogether, a point which seems always to get lost in these discussions. Maybe it gets lost because the answer is damning, having absolutely nothing to do with my “rights”: The state has an interest in marriage because marriages produce children and families which are the building blocks of society. We want to have a society in which children have a mother and a father and we want the state to have a means of keeping track of those individuals.

Marriage is not merely “about sex” but sexual union is one of its axiomatic fundaments by moral, religious and legal rights. Your description of marriage — “Marriage is about love, commitment, family, and shelter from the storm. It

Although a few heterosexuals seem unable to imagine sexual activity between gay men or women wearing wedding rings, marriage is not about sex. Marriage is about love, commitment, family, and shelter from the storm. It’s about history; uncles and aunts; nieces and nephews. It’s about children. It’s about having a place in the world.

Those who wish to deprive men and women whose sexual tastes are not their own of the comfort, benefits and rights of marriage, and to deprive society of its considerable legal benefits, are nearly as mysterious to me as those who believe themselves to be “friends” of people whose existing rights they voted to terminate.

(I bear you no ill will, Ron, but I’m here to take away your right to practice law because the majority of Bar Association members believe your activities in regard to the rights of gays are morally wrong. I can quickly find Biblical references to support the majority’s view but it should be enough that the majority believes your conduct to be immoral. I like YOU, mind you. I simply disagree with your “agenda.” So I hope you won’t be feeling animosity toward me after I relieve you of your bar card).

I am certain it will not surprise you that I am a woman of no small worldly experience. From that vantage point, I am here to tell you that if people could be barred from marrying because of the nature of their sexual preferences, heterosexuals would have to cede the institution to gay women.