So, I have to say, I really regret the fact that my home state made the news today as the first state to ratify a constitional amendment defining marraige as between a man and a woman. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about homosexuality. But regardless, I don't feel like it's the type of thing that merits a constitutional amendment. Somehow I feel like constitutions are supposed to be there to protect people's rights, not limit them.

Do we limit them specifically by defining them? Not really. The U.S. Constitution indicates that all rights responsibilites etc. not specifically allotted to the federal government are reserved for the states. Therefore lack of inclusion in the constitution does not mean a right does not exist. It's up to the states.

So my state decided to come down against it.

See this is where I run into difficulty. I can agree with the conservative side of the fence in saying that I wish we had a more moral country. But at the same time, I do NOT believe in legislating morality into existance. But isn't that what we do with almost all laws? Aren't laws in this country really based on Judeo-Christian morality, like it or not?

Somewhere in a poli sci class the idea was suggested to us young 'uns that "One man's rights end where another man's begin", and that was the basis for law. I really like that definition of law. Unfortunately, you have to stretch it a lot to make it cover much of what our government does, unless you beginning handing out "rights" like candy, and I have to say we need to be careful about declaring everything to be our "right."

*sigh* maybe law school will help me make more sense of all of this