Ms. Bush, Americans are debating the issue and the courts ultimately must settle the issue. Or are you saying the courts will follow the outcome of the debate? This is most dis-ingenious because likely the majority of Americans are against same-sex marriages. *BUT* the Laws aren't always for the Majority. Instead they're for the Minority to protect them from the Majority. It's called Freedom. The Majority of Americans are likely Christian or Catholic. Should we therefore let them dictate Religious thought for all Americans? If we let Majority rule, kiss most Freedoms farewell. The women would never have gotten the vote. "Separate but Equal" would be the Law of the Land far more than it is today.

If two people want to get married for "all the right reasons" let them. Gender is irrelevant.

If marriage is so sacred that it must be between a man and woman then certainly those people who violate that sacredness should face some punishment. Our kids look to parents and to celebrities as role models. Certainly abusive or absent parents aren't much of a model. Nor are the fun frolics of celebs like Britney Spears who marry from an alcoholic whim. And what kind of model is Liz Taylor, who changes husbands on a near daily basis. Or Anna Nicole Smith? She married an old rich guy "for love" and is now suing to get control of that "love". Are these better role models for kids that two people commited to each other who happen to be of the same gender?

There is NOTHING inherently better about a non-same sex marriage that makes the participants somehow better as people or as parents than couples of the same sex. In fact because of the scrutiny same-sex couples may be better, certainly more tolerant, as people and as parents.