random and not clearly structured thoughts....

i don't feel too many would understand what I am saying here: simply stated the label or definition has already been established as a 'lawful' term, not one that is 'legal'. That being said, jargon often is used between disparate disciplines causing ambiguity and chaos....in this specific instance, the lawful definition is a religious one....what is truly being sought after is equality and rights associated with the label however the term marriage comes from lawful not legal definitions first...in fact if you study the doctrines of law, there are 3 distinct doctrines...in all of them, the offspring is why legalized licensure came forward (one common term is known as 'common law'), wherein the offspring become the interest bearing entities of the State (quite different from the religious definition that children 'are an heritage to the Lord')..... I don't often state my opinion on this subject because here is the real kicker, in most instances there is no 'offspring' that may be produced by same gender individuals, and as such the legal entity of the State has absolutely no vested interest of the same gendered union, meaning they have no interest or profit....the real underlying issue as is the norm in politicking and legal issues is that the truths and facts here are not clearly understood....if this fact were truly known, the skewed versioning of religious bigotry would toll a different bell as those seeking 'civil rights' are barking up the wrong tree....similar to a loving heavenly Father what these individuals seek is their own interest, and as such, even if I feel it is wrong, I am happy to let their choices define their own outcomes ...but don't call it marriage as that already has a clear and concise set of definitions reserved by lawful not legal precedent.....