[hocndoc]

No, you're artificially limiting the topic and/or missing the point - on what basis do you deny the benefits to the institution of marriage and the legal protection and name of marriage to "group gropes"?

Or, for that matter, why limit the legal protections that marriage provides to sexual unions, only? "Family" doesn't necessarily mean some members are having sex with each other, for pity's sake.

One of my patients always comes to mind when this subject comes up: A 20-something unmarried college graduate professional woman who was supporting her 60 year old grandmother. Why shouldn't this young woman and her designated family-by-choice (not really - the older woman had diabetes, no skills, and no other family members would step up) receive the same "family" insurance benefits, tax breaks, and whatever legal protections there might be in marriage?

[jwalsh07]

The proposition that marriage should be a religious institution with no government involvement is a principled one but, aside from the fact that there are legitimate interests in marriage from those who are not religious, it is really irrelevant to the public ploicy debate of revising the definition of marriage.

Marriage is inextricably wound into the fabric and laws of this country, both state and federal, and is not going away. So, while I understand your position and might even have sympathy with it, it doesn't obtain.

The question before us is whether or not the definition of marriage should be expanded and if it is expanded, why should it be limited to a small subgroup of Americana.