Frame of reference.<quoted text>
Back to the dictionary, huh? You understand, it's only going to REFLECT usage, not dictate it.
How about we just keep it to the U.S.But notice where it says "in a particular region". So, how do we define the region? "Society" could be all humans on Earth, or only those on a particular continent, or within one nation, or just in one state, or maybe a county or city, or even just your neighborhood. As you drift from one "region" to another, the shared customs, laws and organizations will change. Very close neighbors may have very different customs and laws. Very distant peoples might have very similar ones.
From a legal stand point, marriage has to be defined by the state.NONE of this gives anyone any justification for saying "this is how WE define so-and-so", and then insisiting that anyone else comply with that definition.
True, but there still must be a singular legal definition. Is it "husband and wife", or "spouses for life", regardless of gender composition?But not the only one. And even with same-sex couples, we're still dealing with 2 and only 2 people who select each other (and no one else) for every and all benefits of marriage.
It seems California opted for the "spouses for life not husband and wife" definition.And how does that help? California and Alabama have 2 different definitions of marriage. Are the the same society? Are the different societies? Does one of them not count?
That they do.And watch them change.... That's what they do.
It was viewed as incompatible with military service, morale, readiness, etc, at one time.Common consensus once kept gay people from serving in the military.
Or an atheist, or marry the "wrong person", enter into the wrong profession, and a whole hose of reasons.Communal norms have led parents to disown their children when they find out they're gay.
All sorts of folks were. It treated well in the past.Broad cultural understanding and practices have not treated gay people very well in the past.
That's for Uncle Sam to sort out. As with SSM, details are still bring worked out. Why should the state, that has deviated from the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, not consider plural marriage, along with SSM, under the concept of "marriage equality"?And then what? How do you apply pension benefits to 8 people? How do you allot Social Security benefits to 5 survivors? Who makes custody decisions, divorce decisions, end of life decisions? How many green cards or immigrant visas can be issued to spouses? How much medical care leave can a person take to care for a dozen spouses?
It's not up to me to sort out, a judge or two orders it, and the state takes it from there.If you think that polygamists can just jump into marriage without considering these and many other points, then you haven't thought it through. Ten people can't ride a bicycle built for two.
Marriage means husband and wife, at least in 30 plus states too."Couple" means two.
In several states, it's common meaning as relating to husband and wife, has been jettisoned.Since conjugality can just mean "of marriage", it hasn't been expended.
Again not insurmountable. Why should SSM stand as the only acceptable redefinition of marriage?But, why monogamy? I gave a handful of scenarios that become untenable with polygamy. I'm sure you could continue to think up dozens of situations where the benefits of marriage become too convoluted to administer, when divided among multiple parties who may not want equal division. Even when they do, some benefits of marriage can only be administered to a single other person.