True, as did 32 states in their constitutions.<quoted text>
It's defined however a society chooses to define it.
Oh but I do. I was addressing the obvious. Gay folks don't want the institution of marriage. They want the name.Or they can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances via either the judicial or legislative process. Which is what they've done. Sorry you don't understand the rights of citizens on the US.
Here's what I wrote:
Pietro Armando wrote:
If gays and lesbians want to be included in that institution thyr have to enter into it, as many have for centuries, the same way, by accepting a,person of the opposite sex as one's, respective, legally recognized husband or wife.
Technically speaking only opposite sex participants have sex, aka sexual intercourse, aka coitus. Not quite sure where u were going with that.And you speak for all polygamists on what basis? Personal experience? There's no requirement in a polygamous marriage that only opposite sex participants can have sex. Polygamy would seem to be ideally suited for bisexual humans.
See therein lies the elephant in the room of the SSM movement, polygamy. The rainbow coalition cannot petition the government eliminate the marital standard of one man AND one woman, which applies to everyone, without arguing that polygamists version of marriage shouldn't be included. There's really not to many restrictions the state places on legal marriage. Number, two, and nature, opposite sex, are basically the primary ones. Age of consent, and able to consent, are the others.Failure to advocate for another group petitioning government to address their grievances is not the same as opposing it. There is no constitutional requirement for a minority group to address the grievances of every other minority group along with their own grievance. If polygamists or incest practitioners or whatever other group you wish to toss on the backs of same sex marriage advocates can convince legislators to change laws or jurists to to agree with their constitutional arguments, then so be it.