So...

[gekko]

Congressional Medals of Honor are meant for war heroes.  Marriages are meant for a husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family.

The argument here has been repeated in a few different ways. What it seems to boil down to is
1) we're not limiting to rights of gays to marry; we're only limiting WHO they can marry;
2) gay marriages do not fit with the definition of a marriage (one man, one woman), therefore, they cannot be married.

The second problem is easily swept aside: we're talking about CHANGING the laws, so the current law (or proposed change to the constitution, but I'll try to avoid splitting hairs here) is not in itself reason to keep the status quo. You can't say "we can't change the definition, because this is what the definition says."

The first point is slightly more interesting. However, it too falls apart.

What would the public reaction be, I wonder, if Bush announced blacks and whites could no longer marry each other? Understand, they could still be married (we're not limiting their rights to marry), they simply would have to find someone of their own colour to marry (we're just limiting who they can marry).

The constitution, bill of rights, and US law are very clear about discrimination based on race, colour, age and sexual orientation. When it comes down to it, not allowing gays to marry is... not allowing them to marry because they are gay. Sounds an awful lot like discrimination based on sexual orientation, to me. Sounds like the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, actually.

Anyone who's marriage is threatened by what two total strangers are or are not allowed to do should take a step back and consider what their own marriage is based on.

gekko