It is a profound cultural convention in every culture up until recently to define marriage as between a man and woman. To call a union between the same sexes marriage would be wrong to a historical degree. Why not call their union something else? Koin a new term to describe their unique place in history?

I believe labeling something else with a term that has always been used to describe the the major step in heterosexual coupling does degrade the value of the institution by saying that marriage can be a union of any old person.

Where does it stop? If you allow same-sex "marriage", couldn't you have two straight guys getting "married", keeping it quiet, then using it to twart the system? Does it then have to be homosexuals to be eligible for a same-sex union? Do they have to provide proof that they are homosexual? How would they provide that proof? Would there be a certain criteria to be met? How would you meet that criteria?

This whole thing wreaks of lawsuits. "I married him because I thought I was gay. I got psychoanalysis and discovered that I'm not gay. He "turned me".

How would that go down in divorce court?

__________________
Those who are last shall come first.