Good comment!

The government is only interested in marriage for the purpose of control. Marriage is only tied to the government through the IRS via tax status rules. Cut that link and marriage goes back to being a contract and any "legal definition" of the word becomes irrelevant

Completely agree. Marriage as an institution was co-opted by the church in medieval times. Define civil unions for purposes of Government and let the details be worked out by the individuals.

I am with you on the equality issue but I think there is another layer, and the real battle is there. One side wants the government to say same-sex couples are "OK" while the opposing faction wants just as badly to have the government say they are NOT "OK". Both groups would like to impose their view on the other. Instead, I would like to see the government perform only civil unions for ALL couples ( equal right issue) and leave deciding what is "OK" or what is "marriage" to individuals and churches.

Agreed. Hope the SCOTUS chooses wisely in the basis for the definition of marriage. To me, the basis should be discrimination by Government against the practice of the first amendment. In other words, by defining "marriage' as a heterosexual practice, the Government is granting special rights to one group and specifically excluding another.

There used to be a phrase. How did it go? ummm... Oh yeah! Not no, but Hell No!!

Why would any non-religious person oppose a person's right to love? Why would any true American oppose another's right to the pursuit of happiness? I'm not sure there is, or ever was anything more to say on the subject.

I'm reject religious creeds, and I'm for leaving all couples and polyamorous families in peace.

There are a million of us at Unitarian Universalist congregations.

I guess that's a resounding no. :)