[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...There is marriage, and there is companionship. The two are similar, but not the same.

So, how are they different, and why can some people only enjoy "companionship" and not "marriage?

Originally Posted by Knalus

Common-Law marriage is an example of something that is similar, but not the same as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage would be something even further down that line. In my mind, so much further that it doesn't warrant being "called" marriage.

But you need to explain the difference, and why these things would not at all constitute "marriage." Further to the point, I think you are ignoring something absolutely fundamental in this discussion, and that is that modern, heterosexual marriage is NOTHING like what we might consider "traditional" marriage. But even this statement is problematic, since the point at which we start identifying "traditional marriage" from its predecessor is not clear. If we use "biblical marriage" as the standard, then you encounter the difficulty in the fact that this might actually bear greater similarity to "common-law marriage" than it does to your conception of "traditional marriage" here. You seem to allow for certain developments within the conception of marriage, but at the exclusion of others, and for no clear reason.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I am not against them having the same rights and privileges as anyone else, but to call it marriage because of political correctness is not right. It's political.

I agree, but calling it "marriage" is absolutely not borne out of political correctness. Rather, it is identified as such because it most closely conforms to the description of modern marriage as a relational covenant that celebrates intimacy. This is why people get married. This is why gay people want to get married. This is why it is not only acceptable but necessary to refine the definition of marriage to ensure that same-sex coupling is included.

Originally Posted by Knalus

And to allow politicians and anyone else the ability to change the meanings of something that is at the root of many people's lives just because people don't want to appear to be a bigot is not right.

This isn't something that some nebulous group of "politicians" is attempting to cram down society's throat in an effort to gain public approval. This is about how we—our own society and culture—have changed the meaning of the word by virtue of how we conduct ourselves in marital relations with our spouses. This is the law merely catching up with society.