While marriage has existed in various forms or another since surely the earliest religions, we're talking about it here in its current form, as an extension of the culture of the United States and the laws created to reflect that culture. I'm not against homosexual marriage in of itself, I just think there's an important consideration to be made in the treatment of religious ceremony against government necessities. There's no reason for it to be a government creation in any sense, because it only stirs up arguments and makes the passage of homosexual marriage difficult. The fact that the United States can't pass laws allowing for homosexuals to marry is usually because of doctrinal concerns (however accurate or ignorant they may be). My belief is that the whole definition needs to be changed to diffuse that argument entirely. While I would love my community to accept homosexuals with open arms in every aspect, I would rather see homosexuals be put on an even keel with heterosexuals at a civil level first, because that's where the issue lies mostly. Hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, estate taxes, et cetera all lie in the context of civil marriage, not religious.