[IrishBrigade]

The debate is about changing the state’s understanding of the fundamental natural and social institution even more then it ha already been mutated with serial civil divorce and remarriage.

...civil divorce and remarriage are nothing new...

No one would even be having the debate if so many weren’t conditioned to think the state defines marriage.

...and what kicked off this whole redefinition of marriage are estate tax code benefits accruing to spouses...absent that, and civil unions would have sufficed for the gay crowd...

[Ransomed]

“...civil divorce and remarriage are nothing new...”

No fault divorce is pretty new, isn’t it? I think Reagan signed the first one into law as governor of CA.

“...and what kicked off this whole redefinition of marriage are estate tax code benefits accruing to spouses...absent that, and civil unions would have sufficed for the gay crowd...”

If that was the case we wouldn’t we be seeing comparatively large numbers of gays marrying in the state’s where they can do so? I think what kicked off the whole redefinition of marriage thing is the ability to be able to use the state to punish those who they know will never buy into it. It’s the stick they will never have to put down.

FReegards

[rollo tomasi]

"No one would even be having the debate if so many weren’t conditioned to think the state defines marriage."

Or conditioned to think that the State has NEVER recognized marriage under British North America, under the Articles of Confederation, and finally under the US Constitution.

The Courts have ruled (Recently) to force that recognition in different ways despite the States freedom to define what they recognized since the AOC.