>We both have the right to be concert pianists, but only if we can sensibly fulfil the purpose and function of that status. In the same way, who can marry ought to depend on the purpose and function of the marriage state.
>
>A cynic might argue that marriage no longer serves any useful purpose since there is an inexhaustible supply of young legal or illegal immigrants to maintain society and take care of the needs of those in their dotage, in which case you might as well recast marriage as a religious contract rather than a legal status. Which (apart from anything else) might end all the arguments.
>
>;-)

Since there is no pro-creative mandate associated with civil marriage, (and a great deal of procreation taking place without it) I don't see where heterosexuality is relevant for fulfilling the purpose and function. If it is a contract for partnership, common-property and mutual responsibility, and legal drama upon dissolution, there really doesn't seem to be any logical impediment to gay marriage. Heterosexuals have set the bar rather low <g> and I would think gays might actually add a little class to the institution. ( it might even become trendy to hire "breeder" wedding planners <g> )

Religious marriage is something quite different and I have no opinion on that. Religions are certainly entitled to have firm rules about marriage and to extort whatever baksheesh they deem appropriate for finding dispensation to circumvent those rules. People are entitled to believe what they like and order their lives accordingly - just not entitled to order the lives of others accordingly.

Of course I am notorious for being an extreme liberal <bg>