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

"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 is one aspect of family, but yes, family and marriage are rather circular in their relationship in this country.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?"Marriage already is a civil union as well.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.Not really, the Supreme Court already made the same type of jump in Loving v. Virginia.The first question is: why would civil unions not suffice?A civil union can offer the same privileges as a marriage does.Separate but equal is inherently. An institution designed only for the purpose of distinction is itself discriminatory, and without a compelling interest for the state to create said distinction, it is in violation of Due Process.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?As has already been explained to you, the contract itself is, by its very nature, two party. It is a contract between two people, the benefits involved are only structured around two people, etc. The past limitations on marriage (Same-Race, opposite sex) are not requirements to meet the structure of the marriage contract. Any two consenting adults could get married without running into any issues with the structure of said contract. But as I have already said, I am in support of changing the contract to allow for polygamous marriages, so long as the benefits are created in such a way that is not overly advantageous.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.The legal argument link I was referring to is the justification. Equal protections does apply to two consenting adults, while it does not apply to trying to fit more than 2 parties into a contract between two parties.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?As I have already said, there is no legitimate, compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting individuals from entering into a marriage. So, you can theoretically consider legalization of polygamous marriage to be a possibility.Yes, but for entirely different legal and political justifications.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?While that example is so far beyond that pale that I'd venture to say it most likely wouldn't happen more than half a dozen times (a baseless guess, of course), that would take more legal research from me to say.So, the reason to oppose it is overhead work by the state needed to implement the new contract structure?I never said it is a reason to oppose it, I actually stated my support. I said that the Equal Protections Clause does not apply because two consenting adults could enter into a marriage contract without any sort of changes to the very structure of the contract. Again, there is not a single compelling interest to prevent two consenting individuals from entering into an already existent contract. It does not make sense to try to claim that equal protections would apply to what would be a structural reworking (essentially an entirely different structure for the contract) for a polygamous group. Yet despite that, I am fully in support of doing said reworking for polygamous groups.