[NutCrackerBoy]

Sure are a lot of legal reasons for the government to be involved in determining what is a marriage and what is not.

You've listed a lot of peripheral issues that have arisen around marriage. But I don't think any of them are telling in terms of the criteria that should be used. There is already a perfectly sound definition - union of one man and one woman.

I don't blame gay couples for wanting to opt in to the same legal structures and of course they desire the same financial benefits. But that emphatically does not mean the definition should be changed.

[gcruse]

I don't blame gay couples for wanting to opt in to the same legal structures and of course they desire the same financial benefits. But that emphatically does not mean the definition should be changed.

Agreed.  The legal structures should be available to every adult.  That's why civil unions make sense.  Save marriage for the church if you must, but secular unions should be the default.

[breakem]

I really don't know much about whether or not government should be involved in marraige, but since it is I think you should let the taxpayer marry whom they want to marry. As you may see on this thread the definition of marraige has changed over time. I think there may be societal benefits to gay marraige in terms of health and stability etc. I certainly don't think my marraige or anyone else's is under attack because the women down the street got married. My marraige is strong and doesn't need defending from homosexuals.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There is already a perfectly sound definition - union of one man and one woman."

The problem is that you are dealing with Constitutional issues, and Constitutional rights cannot be defined by gender. Citizens have rights, and "citizen" is a genderless entity.

The fact that we have a definition that you agree with does not mean that it will stand a Constitutional challenge.