It's been my contention for a long time that the definition of marriage is already legally defined. The Mass. supreme court decided it could arbitrarily change the definition of a word to suit its needs. That is legislating from the bench and usurps the powers of congress.
But even Congress cannot change the definition of a word that is legally defined and in use for centuries. The legal definitions of words are the basis for our rule of law.
Congress already faced that dilemna when it racked its collective brain deciding how to word the fourteenth amemdment. In that the word, Citizen, was capitalized in the U.S. Constitution and had a very specific meaning and was already in use, it chose not to change the definition and opted for the lower case spelling in the Fourteenth.
In fact, Congress had a double-dilemma to solve. How to grant rights to its new class of citizens (lower case) when it knew it did not have power to grant rights, as they are unalienable. It did the best it could by acknowledging that its citizens had all the rights and immunities and privileges as Citizens, though they were considered federal citizens -- citizens of a the federal government (United States), but only by contract.
If the homosexual 'union' dilemma is going to be resolved, I think it has to be resolved in like manner. If the homosexual community wants to enjoy the legal benefits of married bliss, they must come up with a word other than the word 'marriage' to define their status, as the word 'marriage' is already in use and is legally defined.
Then they would have to push for an amendment to gain legal recognition of that word to qualify for protection under the Civil Rights Act.
If they succeeded, it would be a federally-regulated and protected community, on the same order as 14th amendment contract citizens.
In any case, if they wanted it bad enough, it's anyone's right to seek recognition and equality.
I doubt seriously that such an amendment would pass, but at least the homosexual community cannot say they were discriminated against as a class, for the class has to first succeed at gaining recognition as a class. If it fails to do that through the amendment process, they have no case and the people would have had their say. IMO.
If they steal the word 'marriage,' and the courts allow it, the rule of law in America will be destroyed, as the courts will have a precedent that will allow it change the legal definition of any word. Think of how that might impact unalienable rights and contracts.
That is exactly what the 'homosexuals' are attempting to do.
Now there are only two courses open, since if a state recognizes a union of this sort as a 'marriage' all states must also accept that recognitation.
One, outlaw it on the state level as is polygymy (which won't happen-but should) or two, define marriage on the federal level so that no state can redefine it.
The point is that the federal level must protect all states from one state abusing the union we have among ourselves.