I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

Hello Phat: I'm not trying to get accusatory here, but can you describe any of these "Legislating from the bench" reinterpretations? Because, by and large, it has been my experience that when this phrase is hauled out it usually by Conservatives who simply do not agree with the ruling of a Judge, even when that Judge is clearly upholding the friggen Constitution. And I don't want The Ten Commandments forced upon me. Let me ask you this. Was there a "definition" of marriage already on the books (prior to "gay marriage" becoming such a hot topic), dictating that a marriage is between one man and one women? Honestly, I don't know, but somehow I doubt it, otherwise all these homophobic Republicans would not suddenly feel the need to define it as such. So it would seem that the "redefining" is being done by the Conservatives in response to Gays wanting to receive the same rights and benefits afforded to the rest of the population. It was only then that some sort of "definition" seemed necessary. And a very narrow and discriminatory definition at that. What? What do you mean by "there simply is no reason"? What are the reason(s) behind a heterosexual couples "need" to get married? What can't gays have the same reason(s)? And by implying that they do it only for economic and legal benefits is pretty insulting, to say the least. At the same time, however, those two reasons are mighty important.