I an not even going to bring up homosexuality. But how do you define 'a husband' and 'a wife', given that some people are born with a varity of genitial birth defects. I am not even going to bring up the psychological gender birth defects, instead I am just going list one of the physical ones that could be used to kill the 'defining husband and wife' arguement.
'Androgen insensitivity syndrome' a person is born with XY chromosomes and testes, but has outward female genitial, though having not internal female reproductive organs. The person's cells are immune to testosterone, during puberty this cause a overproduction of testosterone which the body naturally converts to estrogen. Physically the person develops like an average girl in body measurements and usually has the mental view of being a girl.
Now how would you define this person, male and female? Or someone inbetween who you just deny the right/privilege (not sure which marriage is) to get married to anyone because of birth defects that they were born with?
Just answer the Question and stop dancing around it your starting to bore me . What rights are homosexuals denied? Answer the questions then we can debate all the crap your throwing in my face while not answering my question. I answered you now answer me, If your not willing just say so!
Statistically, if 1/100 of one percent (.001%) of society has sexual birth defects, this poses very little threat to the fabric of a healthy society.
Using a genetic anomaly as a justification for sentencing a huge number of innocent kids to life without either a mommy or a daddy is illogical and mathematically unsound.
" But how do you define 'a husband' and 'a wife', given that some people are born with a varity of genitial birth defects."
Allowing the statistical oddity to define the norm is neither rational nor needful, it is idiocy.
"But how do you define 'a husband' and 'a wife',..."
A man and a women who meet the other legal qualifications (not already married, not related beyond a certain degree, of sound mind, etc.)!
Birth defects such as you suggest do exist. However, To use a medical condition (physical abnormality) to justify perversion is absurd. The radical militant homosexual activists will use things like that to legitimize two otherwise healthy (no physical defects) men living together sodomizing each other and demand that society call their perverted relationship a "marriage" and enact laws that will allow them to teach our children perversion in the school systems.
As to your question about the Federal Marriage Amendment, Amending the Constitution is the only way to close the legal loophole that allows the activist judges to grant legal status to a group of people based on their perverted sexual preference/behavior.