The real question we should be asking is:

  "Do words mean anything anymore?" 

How you define marriage should be easy.  Defining the purpose of marriage invites a much more complex set of ideas that pull from theology or philosophy. 

Redefining marriage is dangerous because it is a core pillar of society.  When you take a word or idea and you redefine it's basic meaning you create confusion and erode the idea.  This erosion has unintended consequences that impact all of society.

I would lean to a more constrained view (Conflict of Visions - Sowell) that would typically frown on the idea of the "anointed" changing the meaning of words in the name of tolerance and acceptance.  I also think that the idea of unintended consequences that Dr Sowell explores in most of his work (Applied Economics) applies to the pillars of our society. 

I believe if you want to make a moral argument for same sex marriage or civil union ("it is the right thing to do" "they love each other and love is always right") you need to have a basis for those morals and be able to defend them.  This is harder than just screaming louder.

I thought it was produced with excellence and the theatre was pached.  You don't have to buy all of the theories to enjoy it.  

I liked the background information on the President and his family.  I felt like I could tell the difference between theory and pure documentary while watching the film.

This whole thing makes me sick in my stomach.  Has the left done this with other tragedies like this in the past?  It makes me want to avoid engaging these people in any meaningful debate.  They seem to be do driven by their ideology that they will do anything to advance it.  

As someone who is deeply religious, I believe that my politics and views on society are built on the intellectual foundation related to what I believe about God (theology). I find that most people I know that are on the left or are becoming more left wing, set their political beliefs as the foundation and then align their faith to fit the political view. This is how I see folks like Jim Wallis. They are more commited to their views on politics than religious primary sources (scripture). I agree that views of God should not be forced on people. But they should also not be doomed to ignorance because of radical materialists who treat any theological thought as pure superstition that provides a crutch or drug like effect. To try and understand why people and societies do what they do without any consideration of God can prove disastrous for the individual and societies who follow their ideas. Over the past 100 years these people have tended to be products of the left. I can't imagine that this is a coincidence.