The current definition of marriage has been in place for over a thousand years in one form or another.
Thats a very loose interpritation of it.
For example less than 300 years ago in this country marriage was defined as between a man and woman of the same color.
Every state and different time periods have had a differing definition based on the age one could be married.
Different places and times have different definitions based on WHO you could marry (in regards to family).
Sure, its been in place for thousands of years in one form or another, with continual change. 2 people isn't too much more of a change than a 12 year old with a 20 year old, or a brother and sister, or a black woman with a white woman. It'd still "one form or another" be the same based on the indication of what you mean by "one form or another" based on the changes to it over the time period you listed.
I'm still waiting for a good reason to apply that definition to gay couples...
Well one, legal precedent under the civil rights acts that "Seperate But Equal" is unconstitutional and thus having a SEPERATE legal term for people that gives them EQUAL rights based on a 14th amendment criteria such as sex is arguably also unconstitutional.
Two, its increased beuracratic red tape to have the
exact same thing placed in the law with the only difference being "between two people" instead of man and woman and a different name. Its redunant and just makes for a more complicated, convoluted, and beuracratic legal code.
Marriage under the law is already defined - that's REASON enough.
No, its not. "Just becasue it is" is not a reason, its a statement. You'd be correct if historically it never changed...but it has. You'd be correct if other definitinos in our law don't change....but they do. "Its already defined" is not a reason. The very point of AMENDING a piece of law is to CHANGE its definition/meaning.
This is like saying why did we bother adding amendments to the constitution. The constitution was already defined. We should've created a new law that gives everything the constitution gives plus gives this other stuff, because I mean, the constitution is already defined and that's reason enough not to amend it.
Referendums in States which want to apply gay marriages to that same definition have largely rejected the use of "marriage" but rather another term.
Which is done primarily for political reasons as it makes it more likely to pass.
What benefit does changing the definition make to non gay people?
Why does this even matter. Why does there need to be a benefit (outside of the ones I alreayd stated above). Since win does a law change mean it must be a "benefit" to everyone in some way shape or form? Should the civil rights movement not have happened because somoene asked "What benefit does changing the rights of black people make to racist people?"
So until a majority of this country is gay, I would say the traditional definition will stay intact for the most part.
So seperate but equal is okay with you as long as people that are seperate are in the minority and that its the way its "always been" for you.
You don't have ANY other reason why you feel that marriage should be defined only as between a man and woman?
Why is accepting the word "marriage" as only between a man/woman so alien? Up until about 20 years ago there was no alternative. Change for change's sake or just want to stick it to the "man"?
Nope, change for the sake of equality, logic, and the principles of this country's law.
I don't care if you change your mind or not. I'm not foolish enough to think that people extremely passionate about an issue on a message board is magically going to change their mind. I just want a straight answer out of you why you feel that the definition should be between a man and a woman, because "it always has been" is worthless becasue other portions of marriage have changed over the years and it is not a reason but merely a statement.
Why should the LEGAL definition of marriage not change if we end up allowing gay men and women to enter into a relationship under the law?
Also, you realize that gay men and women can already enter under marriage under the religious and colloquial definitions of it already, right? Any religious institution could CHOOSE to marry two men or two women if they so choose, under the eyes of their god if they wish. To make it illegal for two people to refer to themselves as married, not claiming it under the law but simply using the term, would be a violation of the 1st amendment if they were married under their religion.
