[risk]

I think your arguments apply very well to the newcomers, the ones who want to redefine the term "marriage." The problem for the rest of us is that marriage qualifies a couple for a massive array of benefits bestowed by society today. For example, immigration is usually approved on the basis of a valid marriage. You're fighting a separate battle: reducing government involvement in our daily lives. If you allow the left to redefine marriage, you will certainly get more involvement by government in personal lives. Doing nothing about this will certainly lead to that.

[King Prout]

again: by removing government entirely from the picture, one removes a weapon from the hands of the deviants - they can no longer hope to wield the might of the government as a hammer to forcibly reshape society and redefine by government mandate the meaning of the word "marriage."

Homosexuals constitute only 2% of the population. Their ardent supporters constitute perhaps another 5%. Seven percent of the population cannot win a culture war against an estimated 85% of the population who oppose them... without that same government hammer.

So, again: Get the gov outta the picture, and let civil society sort this crap out in its own way - we (the normals) will win.

[King Prout]

perhaps I am not making myself clear when I say "get the government entirely out of the marriage business"?

I mean, among other things, BAN -by law or amendment- the use of the word marriage by any organ of any level of government