I honestly don't know why federal and state candidates don't run on this idea. They shouldn't be "changing the definition of marriage' they should leave that to the individual to define. the only "fair" way to deal with marriage (on the government level) is to not deal with it at all. As far as estates, hospital visits and insurance goes there can be civil unions or wills, but "marriage" is no ones business but the people partaking in it. Is that idea really soooo radical?

Marriage has always been a legal contract.

Examples:

If you take care of my daughter for the rest of her life, I'll give you X number of cows/sheep/land/gold whatever.

Marry my daughter so that we can be allies/family and join our forces.

If you think that marriage is about love and that it is NOT about a legal contract, try getting a divorce and then come here and argue your point ;)

However:

Marriage/society has been transformed and it should no longer be a legal contract.

In a wedding ceremony, the father "gives" the daughter away to her soon to be husband. A man "gives" something that belongs to him to another man. The woman is the property being given away. "Here. Take her. She's yours." Do feminist go for this?

Implications:

As technology increases, society "evolves" and this leads to restricting things that were once common practice.

Eventually we will be able to clone humans and create "designer" babies. In the future you may not be allowed to reproduce. Maybe the state will take over the act of creating and rearing individual, docile, citizens.

Or, if you are allowed to reproduce, society will place certain restrictions on you. In China, you are only allowed one child. Children need to be sent to school (presumably for indoctrination). It is frowned upon to use spanking as a form of discipline.