[Ravok99]

I hit some of this stuff in my religion rant; so you know that if I was the Pres. I would look at what is best for the country, so that the definition of the institution takes into account a lot of issues.

Currently, the divorce rate is so sky high, marriage as an institution has completely deteriorated. It is extremely under-valued, and I have seen women use it as a means of self support. I.E. - they seek men that will impregnate them, then sue for custody, child support, etc - then use that money to sustain themselves with a single stay at home mother and a family of around 3 - 5 children; then - as the children grow older, they push the kids hard to support their loving mother.

So - in lieu of these sorts of manipulative uses of the law - what can define marriage? If I was President, I would have to say that a single family unit is the strongest possible use of the institution, and would most likely support that function - as it builds up consistency in the economy by supporting that. However, the populace - in its view of freedoms - has consistently worn down that approach. Do I, as President, accept the weaker definition of marriage, a definition that is economically less viable than the optimum of a single long-term family unit?

That is really the question to pose. How can society support an institution of marriage by law, when it - as a populace - has degraded the institution to the point that most marriages don't last?

Therefore, re-defining it for others that wish to be recognized as a part of that institution seems to me, as just another manipulation of law - because most of the populace does not adhere to their own marriage contracts.