Joe, for once I find myself agreeing with you. It's refreshing to see you say something constructive and it reminds me why I used to call you an ally. Kudos.

I'm getting to it; between Thanksgiving and school I haven't had time to properly address the subject. Just thought I'd put two cents in until I can pay out the other eighty. ;)

Watch your language. Throwing out the f bomb doesn't lend you any weight; it just makes you sound as uneducated and immature as you apparently are.

The argument itself is a contradiction in that the first paragraph seems to imply that it would be best if the word marriage wasn't used, but then the author goes on to discuss the redefinition (or reinterpretation) of marriage. I certainly agree that the ruling cited (if indeed it exists) would not imply that marriage applied to same sex couples as well; however the author seems to imply that marriage can be redefined by citing the ruling.

I've read the book and all I'll tell you is if you haven't; you should immediately.

You're not making any sense at all. First you argue for a separate word, then you argue that the Supreme Court ruled that marriage applied to any man and a woman. Which indicates that marriage can, and has been expanded in the past and thus it is logical that it would be expanded again. By the way, could you cite the case that you reference? I couldn't find it.

I think it would make more sense to expand the term civil union to include all marriages that are performed outside of a religious context. However, I see no issue in the use of the word "marriage" as is.

Oh man, you essentially hit every nail on the head. Here I was working myself up for a rant about the vast superiority of Star Wars and you beat me to it. Oh well.