Krasch

Let's not also forget that marriage is a declaration by a couple to society their intention to live as a family. And families exist primarily for the reason of creating new members of the society to replace the dying ones, in other words, having kids. Otherwise, there's no real difference between a "family" and extended steady dating.

And unless medical science intervenes and/or someone gives up THIER kid, Two guys or two gals ain't going to get it done. Sure they might have good parenting skills, but by themselves, they can't have kids.

Therefore I don't see any good reason for the state to give them the status of those who join for the purpose of adding to the society when they're not capable in any way shape or form of fulfilling that obligation without outside help.

That being said, I also have no issue with the state offering some sort of status like "life partner" that offers such partners civil protections like support payments if the other dies, and so forth. The concept of "separate yet equal" is what I'd shoot for here.

Another point is that those who founded the US (and Canada) were God-fearing Christians (although not necessarily Catholic) and marriage in that context is quite clearly exclusive to heterosexual relationships. Why should we have to apologize for that or worse yet change what we are because some small segment of the population wants it differently when there are other, perfectly reasonable ways to address any inequities.