[Stirring the pot -- reinforcing my choice for "best reason to stay on CE"]:

It's the name of an 'institution' I have in mind: marriage. By now, you've all heard/read about the ruling by the Massachsetts Supreme Court. Here's a link to the AP reportage, courtesy of myway.com, just in case.

Here's my question for discussion: Why must the meaning of the word "marriage" be constricted to its legal status? What is being protected thereby; conversely, what is being harmed if the constriction doesn't occur?

I can predict with fair confidence that the ensuing discussion will boil down to that which is considered "natural" versus that which is considered "unnatural", and the reasons for such considerations. I invite responders to keep a few things in mind:

-- Marriage has never been necessary for procreation - neither has procreation been necessary for marriage (in civil law);

-- Laws are already in place in many states allowing adoption by same-gender couples, and there are plenty of children available for adoption without needing to make more;

-- Most importantly, extension of equal protection under the law to all citizens, regardless of their differences, has been a living ideal in American jurisprudence since former (male) slaves, and then women, were enfranchised - which, as I understand it, is the basis of the Mass. court's decision.

Looking forward to this... ;-D [b.e.g.]