The statement that “marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman” bears exclusively significance for the religiously grounded people in the U.S., but nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a reference as to who may or may not be married to who.  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a mention of any conditions for marriage.

Furthermore, according to AVEN (Asexuality Visibility and Education Network) there can be no expectation that society somehow can assign or ban sexuality to anyone.

According to an article titled “What’s Sex Got to do With It ?” written by Ellen McCarthy and published in the Health and Science insert of The Washington Post,  a 2004 British study of 18,000 people demonstrated that 1% of respondents in society expressed that they felt no sexual attraction to anyone, but of course this does not mean that they are not capable of and/or desire emotional intimacy in a committed fashion, and in the United States this would translate to 3.16 million people.

But, regardless as to whether an individual is asexual, heterosexual, homo sexual, or bi-sexual, when it comes to a society such as the U.S.  one, which is secular and democratic, the only constitutional law which is instructively operative and applies to the right of individuals to be allowed to enter into a marital commitment is that espoused by the Fourteenth Amendment, whose salient portion relevant to this subject within the protection for our Constitutionally protected  “pursuit of happiness”,  is that which protects the entitlement of people have accorded  them “…equal protection of the laws…”, period.  Zero exceptions.

So, the whole debate about homosexual marriage is redundant since essentially the right of the people to marry is guaranteed regardless as to whether the parties to the marriage engage in procreative of recreative sexual activity, since they might as well engage in no sexual activity, and they are still inherently protected by the same rights heterosexuals acquire when they marry, namely the same benefits as well as the same responsibilities which the institution of marriage affords them, regardless of race, gender, and sexual preference.

It is clear that in the foreseeable future all states of the U.S. will want to, and will have to, provide the equal rights under the law as regards to marriage, so any continuing debates and court battles amount to nothing but an utter waste of our the taxpayer’s funds.

It goes without saying that religious institutions will have the right to their outdated dogmas, but these are irrelevant to civil society.

It also goes without saying that we are bound to respect on the basis of the legal and ethical grounds those foreign societies whose historicities and religious backgrounds do not allow them to have marriage institutions as inclusive and progressive as that of the U.S. and most if not all European societies.