1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.<quoted text>
Show me in law where marriage MUST BE based on a cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating.
Show me any jurisdiction in the country that refuses to allow marriage that is not based on a cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any other such silly demands.
Here is an analogy that exposes that idiocy;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!