[KrisKrinkle]

“Simply put, if (as you say) “no one has to recognize a marriage if they choose not to” then it follows that no one has to recognize the meaning of the word “marriage” either.”

I suppose it would be true that no one would have to recognize someone else’s meaning of the word “marriage” unless, perhaps, they wanted to marry that someone else.

But if government was out of the marriage business, why would that matter?

As it stands now, do you have to recognize the meaning of the word “marriage” as it is used in New York and some other places?

“...it is just this sort of squishy, soft-headed idealism that allows relativists to steal the word “marriage” and redefine it.”

Does that kind of argument ever sway anyone to your point of view?

[Flycatcher]

“...it is just this sort of squishy, soft-headed idealism that allows relativists to steal the word “marriage” and redefine it.”

Does that kind of argument ever sway anyone to your point of view?

No.

It never sways squishy softheads.

Has it swayed you?