Why same-sex marriage isn't the

"They have every right to seek a referendum,'' Gusciora said. "These are the same persons that in the 60's would have called for a referendum on laws to end discrimination. They are just against any civil rights for people, they have always been like that. If they are serious about protecting the sanctity of marriage, why not have a bill against divorce." That's the typical lame excuse as to why the democratic process shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. These supporters of same-sex marriage get caught up in the hysterics of the moment and hyperventilate about 'civil rights' when it has nothing to do with civil rights. We are talking about the DEFINITION of marriage. This is not about whether a person of color is denied the right to vote or mistreated or even whether a homosexual is deprived of their 'rights'. This is about how marriage is defined in society as a whole. The norm in America is that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is absolutely constitutional in a democratic society to allow such a definition to be put to a vote, just like it's democratic to put to a vote whether or not the death penalty should be available in a state. For those who say that the 'rights' of the minority should not be put to the majority, they're simply missing the whole point of rights and who in the world are they to act like the elite to decide if the democratic process should be allowed? Sounds like arrogance to me!

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Verify Password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:

Word verification:

newjerseynewsroom.com

Add your comment