Gordon Smith
 

Interesting stuff:



I don't get what he's trying to say, though.

I have no idea what he just said.

He hoped you'd understand...

He's saying that he thinks the states should decide if gays/lesbians should have the right to be married because it wouldn't be right for a federal judge to force a state to acknowledge a same-sex marriage if that state has decided that marriage is between a man and a woman.

He also points out that the polygamous Mormons in the 19th century were driven out of the US because the polygamists were married to more than one woman.

He then points out the similarity of forcing the Mormons out of the US because they didn't practice traditional marriage and a judge forcing a state to recognize a marriage that wasn't traditional.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Except that he is using an example of the persecution of a non-traditional type of marriage to demonstrate that we should keep that same definition and not acknowledge other non-traditional types of marriage. That is what makes it hard to understand,

Basically that he's conflicted over his vote for the ammendment.

I appreciate you explaining why he's difficult to understand, as I had no problem with what he was saying. I can now see why some would have a difficult time knowing what he was saying.

I would say gay marriage might
 

qualify as 'non-traditional'. Not to mention un-natural. I won't point out the obvious about what is unnatural re: two males.

What about male dogs that hump each other? Is that unnatural?