[tame]

Except that would be giving in to the culture enforcers who started this problem in the first place. You can't legislate culture, and our Founding Fathers knew that.

Quite the contrary, you can't avoid legislating culture (Can you think of any formidable culture that has no legislation?). Our founding fathers knew that. So they themselves legislated in the best way possible.

King Henry the 8th was party to the destruction of over 100 Catholic cathedrals and abbeys in England because he thought that legislating religion was a good way to get a divorce.

That's called the genetic fallacy in logic. If King Henry the 8th were to advocate private property to only aristocratic citizens it would not follow that private property were wrong. It would only follow that Henry the 8th did not equally apply private property rights.

It might work if we leave religion out of it.

To the contrary. Withdraw God from the equation and you undermine the very basis for any meaningful definition for marriage.

[risk]

Quite the contrary, you can't avoid legislating culture (Can you think of any formidable culture that has no legislation?)

That cultures have legislation does not imply that they should be formed by their legislation. Anyway, my point is that in a democratic republic, legislation should reflect the will of the people. Most Americans don't want marriage to be redefined. What had always been a definition of consensus is now being shattered by a small group of people trying to force their changes to our culture through legislation. A constitutional amendment defining marriage in traditional terms would reflect the culture as it stands; it wouldn't be navigating it into uncharted territory.

Withdraw God from the equation and you undermine the very basis for any meaningful definition for marriage.

I didn't say anything about withdrawing God, and neither did our Founding Fathers. They did say that religious doctrines couldn't be legislated by Congress, however. And for good reason, as previous attempts to establish religious dogma by governments had all failed miserably in violence and opression.

I'm arguing that the language of the traditional marriage legislation should be simple and matter of fact. You can call it "secular" if you like, but that won't diminish its force one bit. It should say something very similar to this:

The American people define marriage as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The more complicated we make it, the more objections people will find in it.