I think AP needs more criticism. A husband is a male. A wife is a female.
Is it becoming obvious that same sex attraction isn’t normal and is most likely curable.
Marriage has not been defined in Constitution only because for thousands of years it meant only one thing and it would be too stupid to try and define it [as anything other than a union between a man and a woman]. Just because the definition of marriage is not in the Constitution, it's only for a reason that it couldn't be defined as anything else.
If the "marriage" is to be redefined (by Supreme Court and/or legislators) as "constitutional," why then should it be redefined to only include two people, regardless of sex? That is not "progressive" - that is descendence into the stone age.
If "marriage" doesn't mean "one man and one woman" then it doesn't mean "two people" either. In fact, it then means nothing at all except a legal arrangement for getting special benefits from the government - something that government can grant regardless of marriage status to one, two or a group of people, e.g., corporations, business partners, or other legal civic entities.
To define the institution of marriage be anything else than what it meant up to now means discrimination against the groups of people who want to be "married" to each other and/or several other partners (of either sex).
Certainly gives a new meaning of "extended family." Somebody or organizations should file civil rights discrimination lawsuits in those states where the homosexual "marriage" has been declared legal. Maybe then the people who have been confused by the "same-sex marriage" campaigns and now feel that it's "compassionate" or that there is nothing wrong with redefinition of marriage, start thinking through the consequences and the logical end-game of such developments, and cheapening or the meaningless of their own marriage in the future.