Cegerer makes an excellent point. If I can "marry" my male room-mate because we've lived together for 6 years, why can't I "marry" _both_ of my room-mates? As three men living in an apartment, we share all of the responsibilities and relational issues that married people share. Heck, we've even signed a contract to stay in the apartment for a year, which is longer than a lot of marriages last. Why can't we have a tax benefit for demonstrating our commitment to one another in this fashion?
The argument that you make, Neil, is the same one that has been presented every single time something has been cheapened, a definition has been broadened beyond it's intended scope. I remember way back when the Navy Achievement Medal really meant something -- then somebody said "Well, I'm sure that signing off this one NAM isn't going to send us down the slippery slope into meaningless awards," and off we go. My CO told me the other day to "write yourself a NAM and take the rest of the day off."
But that isn't really the point of this thread -- the question is whether or not the gov't ought to get involved. The homosexuals rights crowd has played their cards well on this one -- had they announced it as they really mean to, as a "civil union," the gov't could clearly get involved and pass legislation one way or the other. But because it's "marriage," that's somehow deemed a religious institution, something that the gov't has no part in. If homosexuals wish to refer to themselves as "married," the gov't shouldn't care less. If they wish to partake in "civil union," which is what they really want, but aren't asking for by name, then the gov't obviously should have a say.
... is it more important than talks with Libya? War in Iraq? Trips to the Moon? Starving orphans on the streets of Chicago and New York? Not so much.
BTW, if any of you are interested, I'm about to post "one soapbox, slightly used" for sale in the classifieds section.
Dan