We seem to be discussing two separate definitions of marriage.
The first is the cultural definition. Which Christians and other moral people define as one man joined with one woman for life. The perverts define it as me and whoever/whatever I feel like screwing for as long as I feel like screwing them/it.
The second is the legal definition.
In order to defend our culture and the values that culture is founded upon we use the government to legally define marriage as one man joined to one woman. Unfortunately we've been delinquent in our defense and let them cross out the 'for life' part. No fault divorce was a huge mistake.
Using the Gov to defend/support what is in the nation's best interest is a constitutionally valid use of government.
While the legal definition will never usurp the real (Christian) definition it is a good tool to use to defend our culture and values.
Everything boils down to the fact that as a nation we are better off if we limit unions to 'one man joined with one woman'.
GSA(P)
Good grief, man, that's like asking the Government "to defend our values and culture" by establishing a legal definition of "Christianity".
It is morally wrong thing to do such a thing in the first place (that is, to invite the State into that which is Biblically reserved to the Church), and it is guaranteed to fail and damage that which it tries to "defend".
Which is, of course, exactly what we are seeing right now with Marriage, isn't it??
Since the State is doing such a good job "defending our values and culture" by establishing a Legal Definition of Marriage, why don't we also ask them to "defend our values and culture" by establishing a Legal Definition of Christianity??
Don't worry... they're from the Government, they're here to help.