[fwdude]

If the government recognizes marriage, then it must, by necessity, define exactly what marriage is in order to do this. This is only common sense. A universal understanding of what marriage is has held sway for millennium, making official codification unnecessary, until the anarchist thugs gained a measure of control in the courts and legislatures. Now, sadly, we must define up, down, black, white, in, out, etc. All casualties of political correctness.

[DBeers]

If the government recognizes marriage, then it must, by necessity, define exactly what marriage is in order to do this. This is only common sense. A universal understanding of what marriage is has held sway for millennium, making official codification unnecessary, until the anarchist thugs gained a measure of control in the courts and legislatures. Now, sadly, we must define up, down, black, white, in, out, etc. All casualties of political correctness.

Very well stated and right on target!

[gogogodzilla]

If the government recognizes marriage, then it must, by necessity, define exactly what marriage is in order to do this.

No, it doesn't. Government can and has previously 'contracted out' to religion to provide the definition. You would remove religion from that and place it squarely in the lap of politicians.

Which do you think would be more honest, moral, and just about that? Think about it.

It would be best if government simply stated that it grants recognition to whatever religion declares as marriage. Period.

As religion doesn't recognize marriage between gays/lesbians, then neither will the government... *AND* they will not have the vested power to change that (see above paragraph).