Ken Starr says Prop 8 is a return to the original definition of marriage in California?

Does that mean Starr believes interracial marriage should be outlawed as well?Ken Starr says Prop 8 is a return to the original definition of marriage in California?
Sometimes politicians speak before they think.*Ken Starr says Prop 8 is a return to the original definition of marriage in California?
How can Ken Starr say that this is a return to the original standards. In the US Constitution, it states that everyone is entitled to the God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can this law be constitutional when such people are denying people of this right?





Although our founding fathers said that the will of the majority overruled the minority, they also said that it isn't right when the will of the majority is an injustice to the minority.





As far as interracial marriage, California led the fight in this effort.





Starr is crazy!
Who knows what goes on in that mans head. He needs to butt out of other peoples personal lives and let them be how they wish.





But to answer your question, I dont think he intended it to be interpreted that way. That would be crossing yet another line, one that i thought we had already erassed (legally, at least).
I'm not quite familiar with Prop 8 I remember it had something to do with same sex marriage, but as for Ken Starr, you're jumping to conclusions to think you can know what he meant. All you can do is take what he said at the face of it.
Not to worry....








I don't care what starr thinks.....














the gay marriage thing will keep going back and fourth for a while ....








but eventually gays will be able to marry just like the rest of us.....














everything take time......











the civil rights movement took time.......











womens liberation took time.......











when you look back at history , theres always a pattern......








but in due time, we will all have equal rights......

















not to worry , my friend : )
No, the original definition of marriage does not mention race and you know it. It is obvious that the Supreme Court of California is not buying this effort to overturn the will of the voters.
The actual definition of marriage is a union


of two people... there is no mention of race


or gender involved.
';Separate but Equal'; -- the modern day Plessy v. Ferguson





Instead of race it's sexual preference.
marriage was never defined until people decided they didn't want gays to partake.
Some people want to go backwards and others want to go forwards...
An unintended consequence, I'm sure.
sounds right