Nationwide public opinion opposes changing the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. A Pew opinion poll of 1,512 adults nationwide conducted in August found that 60% of Americans either oppose or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally; only 29% of those polled either favored or strongly favored such a measure. However, in the same poll, 48% of respondents either favored or strongly favored non-marriage legal unions; only 45% opposed or strongly opposed civil unions. Other polls reinforce these results.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it! J/K. I just wanted to say that.

David #2 (a different David) brought more to the table, though, so there's that to debate. Me, well, I'm going to go watch The Apprentice or something right now.

It's also troubling that the states are not recognizing contracts made in other states -- civil unions from states allowing such. While they're "strengthening marriage," they're weakening all law.

From a Google search: the text of the amendments

I am not sure that the group, as a whole, wants a mere civil union. Evidenced by their failure to coin an alternate word, it is pretty reasonable to say that they want more than just a civil union.

I think that gays and lesbians would have an easier time getting the laws they want if they chose another word. I think that, to a lot of people, "marry" and "religion" are still tightly interwoven.

I think that if they could find another word, they'd have an easier time - especially in the bible belt - convincing folks that they're entitled to the same tax breaks or custody or whatever as a heterosexual "married" couple.

I don't oppose the idea of gay/lesbian couples "unionizing" (to choose a horrid word of the one or two that have been offered). But religious folks in this country have controlled the status quo and agenda for a loooooooong time now. Picking a word other than "married" may help them achieve their goal, because a lot of people associate the word "marry" with both religion and "man + woman."

Why people are so hung up on what that "we, together" thing is called is beyond me.

Why have a problem with that being called marriage, then? Try Merriam Webster's definitions. They accept all of the things we're talking about here.

It doesn't sound like you a) oppose the idea of two same-sex people living together and considering in their own minds that they are married b) that you belong to a organized religion that opposes the institution.

I'm not sure why you oppose a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples. I think in today's society, the word marriage is no longer solely a religious word. I think it has taken on other meanings - actually, all the definitions we quote frame marriage as a legal construct.

OK, so I see three definitions of marriage: legal, secular, and religious. I don't think the government should restrict the legal (I described how I felt above: "The benefits, protections, etc. that the government provides are intended for people who have declared that they wish to be bound by the responsibilites and commitments that come with it.") I think the secular definition should not be restrictive either - if they want to feel that way, then I embrace it as well. The religious definition I think can be left up to each religion, but should obviously only be applicable to dealings with that religion.

I guess my point is that the word should not be monopolized by/only applicable to the religious meaning. Why can't you use the same word and differentiate the meaning by context?

to summarize: the *term* marriage has always been, should always have been, and should always be a religious term that follows religious rules. if you want to have the government augment the institution of marriage, (which it shouldn't!) the government's rules can't discriminate, and therefore should use a different term that just happens to partially sync with the religious institution.

How does it affect you?

I looked the word 'marriage' today in the dictionary, and while does have the 'man and woman' phrasing, there is another version of the definition being, "any intimate or close union". That makes the definition very, very broad doesn't it?

I, for one, don't agree with the 11 states' definition of marriage. I consider it to be discriminatory. I've been married for six years and I really don't see two men or two women getting married being a threat to my marriage. Maybe it's because aunt is a lesbian, and I've been around gays all my life. I really don't see it as a big deal.

Allowing homosexuals to marry (or whatever the hell one would call it) is only the expansion of the definition. Society will just have to evolve like everything else. Primarily, I think people are scared of what would happen if gays were granted that right.