Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

"Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage".Have you noticed that your two definitions contain a circular reference?Marriage is defined by family, and family refers to marriage.Maybe the "family" should be removed from the marriage definition, after all? Marriage already is a civil contract.Oops. Sorry, I wrote the wrong word. I meant "civil union", not "civil contract".So, that part of my post should have been:"That's more or less a definition of civil union. So why the need for redefining marriage?"Because there are many individuals who are prevented from entering into it with their partners in a way that violates Equal Protections and Due Process.Were you referring to this:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.It takes a huge leap to get to redefinition of marriage, from that clause.The first question is: why would civil unions not suffice?A civil union can offer the same privileges as a marriage does.Second question: how does that clause differentiate between gay couples and gay polygamous groups? Why is a privilege granted to couples, but not larger groups of people which share a bonding relationship?First, there is no legal argument linking those two.Well, the legal argument is not linking these two forms of liaison. The legal argument here is based on total similarity of legal justification - both times the equal protection clause is (incorrectly) being used.Second, marriage as a contract is between two people. No part of the marriage contract could work with more than two people.Before that, marriage was a legal contract between a man and a woman. This is exactly the point of our debate - why not redefine it further along this direction?Third, I see no problem creating provisions within the civil contract of marriage that allow more than 2 individuals to enter into it, so long as issues of inheritance, taxation etc are provided for in a way that does not create a more advantageous situation than a two party marriage.So, you can theoretically consider legalization of polygamous marriage to be a possibility.Now, let's consider this scenario: a married gay couple adopts a boy. That boy later turns out to be "gay". When he reaches consent age, the gay couple marries that boy in a polygamous incestuous marriage. Would that serve the equal protection clause?Again, that isn't a legal argument, that is the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is no compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract that already provides the framework for such. Comparing that to completely reworking the structure of the contract and all the benefits within is just silly.So, the reason to oppose it is overhead work by the state needed to implement the new contract structure? That's hardly an argument here, since the goal is supposed to be implementation of the equal protection clause.