great answer, wednesday. most of it makes "sense" (if y'know what i mean).

i guess i just dont get it.

the procreation concept would null and void tom cruise and nicole kidman's marriage. silly.

the parental argument, i guess, has some merit. but, my girlfriend's father is an ass and hasn't been involved with her family in some 15 years. her and her sister were raised by their mom and their grandparents. many kids have two adopted (hetero) parents. many live with just an aunt and uncle. and dont all permission slips need to be signed by a "parent or legal guardian"? seems to me if a grammar school field trip could handle this problem, the gubment could, too.

the historical idea, as you pointed out, is equally silly.

state interest... hmm... i guess this is a tricky point. i guess it requires a broader definition of the term "compelling." is that 100 people? 1,000,000 people?

i never thought of the cost factor, or tax / insurance coverage factor. an interesting argument. but, i think a similar counter point as the parental argument could be made for most topics in this one.

the "institution of marriage" is something based completely upon the two being wed. if you want that to be sacred, go for it. if not, thats yer call. there are swingers all over the place. how many rock stars or rappers are married for 2 or 3 days? i can "understand" why a certain religion might want to exclude the concept of a homosexual marriage, but i guess thats ok because they're private entities. they're allowed such luxuries. they're also "in control" of how the concept of marriage is perceived. but the government? no way. vegas chapels abound.