the marriage protection amendment

On Saturday Bush urged Congress to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, saying that marriage "cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots."

I just don't get it. I don't understand it at all. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Marriage Protection Amendment obviously goes against what the authors stated. For example, let's take the word liberty alone. Webster's defines liberty as:

"the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice"

Undoubtedly, an amendment to our constitution banning same-sex marriage would take "liberty" away from same-sex partners wishing to be married. Civil Liberties:

"individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference."

I just don't get it. Clearly governmental interference. Clearly.

And, WHO F*%^ING CARES???? If my neighbors get married, get divorced, whatever, it doesn't hurt me, or anyone else, no matter what their sexual orientation. It's not like they are murdering people, molesting people, selling drugs to my kid, or....lieing to the public to go to war or listening in on my phone calls....

Peter Baker at the Washington Post writes (emphasis mine):

"'His position is that he thinks people ought to have the freedom to lead their private lives," White House spokesman Tony Snow said."

Hmmmmm......really?? That's really Mr. 31%'s position?? Mr. Fox News goes on:

"He also does not believe that that means that you have to redefine the institution of marriage. He believes the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman."

That's more like it! That's sounds much more like the Bush we all know. Freedom to lead their private lives...but not the freedom to marry. Only a little contradictory....but...as long as that's what "the decider" believes.