If Albert, Barbara, and Charles go to San Francisco City Hall in 2008, and Albert says "I want to marry Charles", he's told no. If he says "I want to marry Barbara", he's told yes. The state knows nothing about their sex life or feelings about children. What is the rationale?
For another example, inability of consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment in some states.
http://www.colorado-family-law.com/termination-marriage/annu...
I've been married twice in CA and on neither occasion was I asked about my sex life or child-raising plans.
Your example statement isn't useful either, as plenty of same-sex couples are unable to create children. By the same logic, infertile people should also be excluded. If that was the point (marriage only for people seeking to reproduce), at least it'd be consistent.
Excluding poly-amorous people from marriage is a mean, anti-human thing, too.
>So are you saying if a CEO of a company believed euthanasia to be wrong you'd stop using that companies products?
It's more than just believing, it'd have to be that the CEO had performed actions to directly oppose euthanasia. And I generally don't boycott something unless I think using the product will directly contribute to hurting something and there's a reasonable alternative. For instance, buying a music CD directly gives money to a company that will lobby for DRM, against privacy, and for longer copyright. Whereas using FireFox is unlikely to directly help anti-gay campaigners. (I still hope there's backlash against FF and Eich, because screw his Prop8 stuff, and screw JS - but that's more of a "I just wanna see things burn" perspective.)
There are plenty of rational ways to do that. I'm guessing you'd primarily disagree with the axioms on which they're founded.
How about "state recognition of marriage is primarily about supporting the family unit as the nucleus of society - as same-sex union can't create children, long-term partnerships engendering opposite-sex union are to be promoted in order create a general impetus towards stable home environments for child rearing and raising". That seems rational; disregarding verity do you disagree it's rational?
If you argue against this definition then to my mind you come to define a new relationship, let's call it civil-union. In civil-union there seems no logical reason to exclude same-family, or multiple-person unions. I can't see how you can say "the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman [who're not closely related]" is wrong because it limits marriage to a particular historical/tradition form and then come up with a new definition to foist on people that excludes groups (families, polyamorous, etc.) for arbitrary reasons that don't even have the support of history or tradition [or theology].
>Probably the closest modern issue is [...] //
So are you saying if a CEO of a company believed euthanasia to be wrong you'd stop using that companies products?