Candidates for office struggle with the same basic problem on many contentious issues, and that is always their belief system juxtaposed against the court of public opinion. Some issues are clear to answer unequivocally, while others need to be qualified.
On the issue of marriage, which has its underpinnings in biology, anthropology and the consensus of many world religions..... the definition is quite clear and defined by the union of one man and one woman.
Acceptance and respect for the freedom of two consensual adults of the same sex to form a civil union is not at issue in this debate.
The issue at stake is the infringement upon the freedom of those who conform to the traditional definition of marriage, by those who wish to redefine the sanctity of that union to garner ‘more’ acceptance for themselves into an already free society.
The point of acceptance in a free society, whether it is related to color, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation always narrows down to a state of mind.
The Constitution not only defines rights, but also defines mechanisms to preserve those rights. Moving the lines of definition, moves the lines of equality....which creates inequality.
We are all created equal, and vigilant debate and enforcement of the Constitution over time has proven this. Changing definitions must never change the Constitution.
Marriage is and always will be between a man and woman, but that has no bearing on the love between two people.