So let them be in visible, public relationships. Let them be more loving and lasting than hetero relationships.
I would think it would be more important to look at the divorce rate in this country than to try and work what really is discrimination into the constitution, when it really won't change anything, but will have the potential to make so many more things in this country worse.
Yes, dealing with the divorce rate is a far more important task, in the grand scheme of things, than trying to invent injustices out of the Constitution. The issue, which you have yet to address, is what this has to do with gay marriage?
If our constitution can ban a certain group from doing something, when it doesn't endanger anyone else, is a slippery slope on which I don't want to be.
We've already logged a good many miles on the good old slippery slope. That's largely why we're in this mess. Here's the deal, I'll ask again, and see what you come up with.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a social contract between two adults, and was created for the benefit of their children. It is an elevated status, to signify it's importance. It exists in all societies as a mechanism of survival.
Now, what need does society have in issuing the same status to a group of people who are unable to procreate, and whos' status is irrelevant to the survival of society? Why do they warrent a special protective contract from society when they have nothing to protect but their own individual desires?
What about those people who get married who can't or don't want to have children? Should they be banned from marriage, espcecially if they knew children weren't ever going to enter the picture???