That was their argument (on the other forum), too. Both were straight and married, with no children.
But, the whole "model" of marriage is based on one man/one woman because they produce children together. So, while we might marry for "love", the reason for the state to recognize a legal institution called marriage is to provide stability for a family that a man and woman might produce together.
Anyway, I'm wondering how many Freepers would agree or disagree.
"the reason for the state to recognize a legal institution called marriage is to provide stability for a family that a man and woman might produce together."
I won't argue with the traditional 'model' of marriage. But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right to be married, if only to provide a sense of stability for themselves, yes? That is, if marriage licenses were only to be issued to those based solely upon that model, there would be a lot less married couples around, and that would run a traditionally-minded society (such as ours) into problems concerning morality (living in sin comes to mind, when thinking about religious implications).
I suppose I should ask you: how do you feel about couples who cannot (or do not want to) have children? Should they be allowed to marry? Or should they live their lives alone?
Agree!