Why all the hysteria over “redefining marriage”? A marriage is a union of two or more units. And that’s it. There are some people who may be of a possessive bent who feel that they own marriage and that it is only for heterosexual people. And there are a lot of “traditionalists” who believe that, because it has been traditional that only heterosexual people have married and that a marriage has consisted of only two people, a male and a female. But that does not justify legally restricting such a relationship or association only to those types. Some insecure people are expressing a visceral opposition to seeing same-sex marriages occur. It really bothers them, even though those same-sex relationships and contracts are as private as the opponents’ own private relationships and contracts. Why do those other people’s private personal arrangements bother the traditionalists so much? There used to be a phrase, “mind your own business,” and I think that applies here.
And also, where is the moral justification for requiring someone to get the State’s permission for one to marry? What business is it of the State, and its bureaucrats? What business is it of your neighbors? Do they own your life, or do you own your life? If the government owns your life, then of course it is morally justified to require you to seek its permission for you to marry. But if you own your own life, then it should be proper to have the freedom to marry whomever you want, as long as its mutually consensual and there’s no aggression or coercion involved. And some people ask, “Where in the Constitution is there a right to marry?” As I wrote in this article 3 years ago, the Ninth Amendment does state that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (And that is why, sadly, the Supreme Court, like the statists of both the right and the left, hate the Ninth Amendment!)