This question has taken on a very big role in political debates recently, especially since SPECTRUM started trying to make everybody gay, however no answer seems sufficient. This will, hopefully, finally provide a satisfactory answer. Fundamentally, marriage is simply a contract. In it, people make arrangements for the pooling of resources, the upbringing of offspring, power of attorney, and of course as is necessary in any contract, the consequences if any one of the signatories break any of the clauses and the obligations in other cases of dissolution of said contract. Some religions still display this contractual aspect of marriage, Judaism with the ketubbah, Islam with the nikah. The Constitution provides individuals the ability to enter into contracts with anyone of legal age they please. Does, this does leave the door open to polygamy, but if people can imagine how hard it is to get two people to agree on important issues that arise in marriage, can they imagine how much more difficult it would be for three or more people to agree on said issues? If they are able to work all those issues out, they probably should be allowed to get married, but I So, where does the problem arise now? Mostly that the term marriage has, in the minds of many, a religious connotation. What's the best way to deal with this? Change the named of the civil procedure to civil union, and reserve the term marriage for the religious institution. This, in the end, does not prevent gay marriage, as there are some denominations out there that officiate same sex marriages. This does, however, place everyone on an equal legal footing. Many may oppose this plan, arguing that because its not called marriage it doesnt carry the same weight. To these, I would like Shakespeare to answer, Would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet? Granted, the ideal situation would be to get the government out of relationships, but its best to take it one step at a time