I thought Galt's post was quite pointed and insightful. Why didn't you answer his question? "By your logic, why bother with marriage at all, straight or homosexual? Just screw away, like ghetto bunnies."<quoted text>
By your logic; the government should institute forced marriage and stone people to death for having sex before marriage!
Oh yes, the rightwing authoritarian at his finest.
Then you can hire sex police to make sure no one is doing it; they can knock on doors; "papers please?"
"Book 'em Danno, these two aren't married"
So...why bother with a definition? Someone else is bound to come up with a different version. Are you going to be the one who excludes them and denies them their rights?