[dontcareaboutmyid]

I agee that there should be limits on what can be done and what not but you can't amend something like that.

interfering with marraige gets very close to tampering religion, something we're all protected under in the first amendment rights.

If something like an amendment restricting marrage rights is let through because a couple of homo's want toget married whats to say that the freedom of press isn't next? or freedom of speech? I would have to think that dealing with things on a case by case basis would have to be the best thing.

someone above provided an example of an adult marrying a 12 year old. If the parents consent and she wants to there nothing wrong with it in the eye's that matter.

If someone wants to marry their dog (And I'm just playing devil's advocate here) and someone wants to marry them they'd be married. But then it'd just be that guy and the dog. You have to think a little logically here. if someone were to marry their dog they'd be thought of as pretty strange correct? That person would have to decide if marrying is accually worth not having anyone else. But i garantee there are slim to nil on people that would marry a man and a dog.

To chardish, Insest is already recognized, its called alabama and other sothern states. (no offence to alabama and the souther states b the way)

in some religions, polygamy (three or more person marraige right?) is perfectly acceptable and recognized.

i have yet to accually hear cases of beastiality, but i'd wager there are some. I just won't accually go looking for them. If you're going to amend something, amend that beastiality and marraige to animals is wrong.