"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[robvalue]

How about this:

If marriage is defined by being between a man and a woman, then the only way to assure equal rights is to say no one can be married. Instead, we produce a new term which covers everyone, and does the same thing marriage used to be. Let's say adjoinerage.

Now... is this a preferable solution? In what ways is it better, and in what ways worse? I'd say the ways it is worse vastly outweighs the ways it is better.

Of course, this isn't what definitionists want. They want to keep marriage how it is, even though it's an outdated definition based on ignorance and intolerance, and leave same sex couples out in the dark to fight for scraps.