[Aramike]

The majority of people have been comfortable with all sorts of evil over the millenia. I'm not saying that finding homosexuality distasteful is evil, but still folks condone all sorts of discriminatory practices because it's easier for them that way.

So? How is the parallel?

We're talking about same thing, different terminology. All sorts of people have be comfortable with all sorts of good for generations as well. The point is moot. There are many arguments here, not just the comfort one.

The US federal government honors Christmas. Should it honor Ramadan as well? Culture, tradition, biology, the very REASON for secular law honoring marriage (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html), etc create a vast wall against infringing upon the term.

I have yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why the meaning of a time-honored traditional term should be changed to acoomodate the extreme minority while the same rights are being extended.

Ultimately, in that context, the question becomes "why"?

In some ways I could be called a homophobe. When a friend showed me Six Feet Under I thought the show was pretty good - right up to the point when they had a scene of one of the main characters kissing his boyfriend. I refused to watch it after that. However, I feel that Jefferson's argument for Religious Freedom applies here as well. What injury does it cause me if they want to get married? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In fact it means nothing at all except to someone's personal morals, which means that we're back to legislating morality.

Again, that only addresses part of the reasoning behind the secular respect given to marriage.

But let's go with it - how does religious freedom apply? Gays certainly aren't arguing for marriage rights based upon religion. But let's say they were. Jefferson clearly understood that not anything purporting itself to be religion in order to secure federal recognition should be allowed to do so - else we'd have people marrying trees, or at least it would be implied that he meant they should be allowed to do so.

Legislating morality and respecting cultural morality are two different things. Besides, how is giving someone the SAME EXACT THING but defining the term differently (as it WOULD be something different) legislating morality?

Words mean things. Right now, legally defined or not, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you're going to come up with something new, why not use a new word?