[Paul C. Jesup]

I am personally in favor of a longer definition along the lines of "A valid marriage requires one person to be born male and remain male throughout the marriage while the other person must be born female and remain female throughout the marriage. If either or both undergo sex reassignment during the marriage then the marriage becomes null and void."

That just it, because the laws are so vague that intersex people can be banned from marrying anyone this is how these amendments will be attacked.

Of course, I believe the government should have NO say on marriage one way or another when dealing with adults; it opens up too many doors for abuses of powers to have it any other way.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"I believe the government should have NO say on marriage one way or another when dealing with adults"

Part of me agrees with this. If we can come up with a way to eliminate the concept of marriage from all law, then it might work, but I believe that would be difficult.

Can we eliminate the concept of marriage from the tax code? Do we eliminate the age-old sanction of a spouse not being required to give testimony in court against the other spouse? Do we allow individual companies to decide when and when not to extend medical coverage to significant others? How do we protect children without mentioning marriage? etc.

[supercat]

That just it, because the laws are so vague that intersex people can be banned from marrying anyone this is how these amendments will be attacked.

The remedy would be to provide that a person must have one of a number of characteristics to be called a man, and must have one of a number of other characteristics to be called a woman; a few people would have characteristics that would allow them to be called either. Those people, and those people alone, would be allowed the discretion to declare their sex.