Re-defining the legal definition of marriage.
People may not be happy for religion to be part of the discussion (Letters 13th August, 2015) but my offering clearly demonstrates, like it or not, religion is a key part of the equation.
Who could seriously contend that the complementary male-female design of the sex faculties (with each being so obviously intelligently designed with the other in mind) could be anything other than the work of a Mind of such awesome intelligence and power to be the Creator-Generator of the incredible symphony of life populating Its whole One-Creation.
How could it then be construed that this Mind has somehow intended that Its design of the natural bond of the procreative male-female union might be set aside, and substituted, for an unnaturally contrived, procreatively sterile, physically incompatible 'union' by persons of the same gender, with the claim that their unnatural 'union' is equally licit?
Does the complementary male-female unitary design not have its root-source in the Mind of the Creator? Is not the root-source Mind, the One we call, God? Is it not right then, that God's Voice, expressed in the Natural Order of the complementary male-female genders, should hold the key to the deriving of the right outcome in the present discussion?
As Thomas Aquinas said, "Any Law which does not accord with Natural Law (order), can never be a true law, but only a corruption of law."