[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.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I remind you that the Equal Rights Amendment was not ratified. There is nothing that proscribes state laws from using definitions based on gender.

Please don't tell me you are going to say a definition of marriage (that matches the dictionary definition) interferes with a person's Constitutional right to marry whomever he or she pleases.

[ArGee]

The problem is that you are dealing with Constitutional issues, and Constitutional rights cannot be defined by gender.

Marriage is not a right. It is a licensed privelege.

Idjits screaming about rights is way overused, IMHO.

It is reasonable for us to discuss whether the state should license marriages and what marriages it should license, but we should not be wasting our bandwidth on the non-issue of equal rights.

Shalom.

[jwalsh07]

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.

There is no "fundamental right" to homosexual marriage Luis. For a scholarly opinion on that statement, read Standhart v Superior Court of Arizona, Nov 2003.