The only thing you lack however, is the chalk to draw that line with.
The US Constitution guarantees that even those who you would leave on the other side of your "line" get a voice.
The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start.
Honest debate requires honesty Luis.
Let's try again.
Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual?
Jump in Luis, the morality is fine.
This was my point about this push (and why it is bad for society) above.
The non-traditional marriage movement seeks to remove any "approval" of marriages. Forget government "approval", I am talking "societal approval". This is a part of the culture war's attack on the family.
As I got you to admit, you still think that the government is permitted to restrict blood relations from marrying. Either they can restrict a marriage between adults or they can't.
We can argue over "who's" marriages can be outlawed but you have to settle whether the government has any say.
You believed that the genetic crapshoot of such a mating was too great a risk and that it intruded on your rights (somehow, what as a taxpayer???).