My own PERSONAL opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and one of its highest purposes, but NOT the only purpose, is to have children and raise them together.

It is also my personal opinion that the Constitution of the United States should have jack shit to say about this. It's not what a Constitution is for. Nor should there even be Federal legislation on this.*

If it is handled anywhere, it should be at the state level, and even there it does not seem to me to be an issue for a state constitution, which is where this issue seems to be percolating.

The legal issues come in because married couples are treated differently under many laws than singles, or roommates, or Significant Others. Maybe this is the issue that needs addressing. But I get the feeling that this is less important than dismantling the "oppressive" religious moral structures in America.

One problem with stripping all moral and traditional definitions loose from the idea of marriage is that you can then no longer legitimately draw a line anywhere else.

Okay, a gay couple can marry. Can an adult brother and sister? If they agree not to have kids? Why or why not? How about a father and adult daughter? How about three people? How about six? Aren't these arrangements just "differences?" Haven't some situations like this been the norm in some cultures (especially among royalty?)

Are any of these "unnatural?" Why, or why not?

If you can come up with any reasons to oppose the latter situations other than "well, it's just WRONG," or "it's never been done that way," or "it's illegal," let me know.

*IMO, the same applies to abortions.