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.
Excellent and thoughtful commentary. Consequences are something liberals leave up to others. They’re bumper-sticker thinkers and their intellectuals lie.
Every homosexual activist knows that the next step is transexuals, transvestites and pedophiles recognized as “normal”. I love your line linking this thinking with its counterpart in the history of human civilization - it is truly a return to the Stone Age.
Your point about government benefits being granted outside of a redefinition of marriage is spot on, but that’s not their goal. It was supposed to be solved with civil unions, which we have here in Illinois. Civil unions were just a step in their war against Nature and Nature’s Law - they want homosexuality to be normal.
They’re deeply psychological and they feel flawed. This drives them to try to be “normal” and claim all that normalcy brings. It won’t bring them peace. They aren’t feeling crazy because society won’t accept them. They’re simply feeling crazy because their lifestyle is crazy and mentally unhealthy.