What is magic about the numer 2? If, as you say, sex, sexuality and sexual preference is not an issue, then what is the rational basis for excluding any two or more people from the new definition of marriage? Why can't Aunt Irene marry Aunt Dolly so that Aunt Dolly becomes covered by Aunt Irene's government pension and SS survior benefits? Why can't any group of people marry? Surely a bisexual can not achieve happiness without one spouse from column A and one from column B. Wouldn't you agree?
Along with the ignorance, are the most absurd arguments
given to support the reason for denying Constitutional rights
to an entire segment of society.
It's not only ignorantly absurd, it's inherently blasphemous
in the Godless manner the rejection of God's creations are
dealt with.
Two people that desire to vow to live as one forever, should
not be denied legal rights simply because they do not meet
a moral qualifier.
I will not follow the absurd down the path of discussing polygamy,
group marriages, communal living, incestuous marriages, bestiality,
etc. It is not part of this discussion, nor is it part of the problem.
There are rights and benefits granted to those that vow legally, to
live as a bonded couple. If the law refuses to acknowledge the
same vow of same-sex partners, it is denying rights prejudicially.
If "conservatism" means not living to our Constitutional dictates,
then this may as well be a democrat's forum. Freedom and rights
belong to all, equally. There is no religious, ethnic, heritage, color
or sex qualifier, nor should there ever be allowed to be.
That - is freedom.