> As of today, in this country, that's true. A few days ago, it wasn't. Anything can mean anything once words stop meaning anything.
No, it was never true. What about marriage makes it specifically require a man and a woman? There was never anything in the government definition of marriage that meant that it required a man and a woman. There was never any requirement to have children, or even to be able to have children. The only reason "marriage" required a man and a woman is that laws had been passed to make it so.
In other words, you could take every word written on marriage in the legal code and apply it, without alternation other than fixing the pronouns, to a same-sex marriage. Marriage didn't change, it just became available to more people.
> What about marriage makes it specifically require a man and a woman?
Is that a serious question? What do you think marriage is, State recognition that two people want to have sex exclusively? Why does it even make sense to have State recognition of a sexual relationship? It really doesn't.
Now, I don't think it makes particular sense to have the State recognise sexual relationships which may produce children, because there's no real need for it too: modern paternity testing can easily solve the actual problem civil marriage addresses.
As for the rest, why should those civil benefits be limited to people in a sexual relationship? Why should I be able to put my brother on my insurance? Why shouldn't a fraternity be able to form a civil union if they wish?
What possible benefits does civil marriage confer that should be restricted to two people who have sex, but not restricted to two people who might produce children?
No, it was never true. What about marriage makes it specifically require a man and a woman? There was never anything in the government definition of marriage that meant that it required a man and a woman. There was never any requirement to have children, or even to be able to have children. The only reason "marriage" required a man and a woman is that laws had been passed to make it so.
In other words, you could take every word written on marriage in the legal code and apply it, without alternation other than fixing the pronouns, to a same-sex marriage. Marriage didn't change, it just became available to more people.