Replies

So you're saying legal definitions can't be altered? I don't think so! Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there wasn't any Federal definition regarding one man and one woman until DOMA passed in 1996.

BTW, did you notice the Findlaw link listed TWO definitions? You may have a third one after the Massachusetts SJC rules.

Definitional semantics aside, why wouldn't same-sex couples have the same reasons for getting married as opposite-sex couples?

Like I said, a narrowly-defined compelling state interest needs to be demonstrated to justify withholding the fundamental right of marriage from same-sex couples.

Marriage isn't the immutable institution many think it is. Interfaith and interracial marriages used to be taboo and now they're commonplace.

"BTW, did you notice the Findlaw link listed TWO definitions? "

And did you notice that the second definition related to the word, 'marriage,' as already defined in definition one, which was very specific?

I can't address the other points in your post, as I don't believe anyone can change the definition of the word, marriage, without violating the copyright.

Do you have an objection against using a different word to describe homosexual contracts?