My argument is not "Gay People are Icky." I know, and have known, many gay people. While I find their sexual behavior somewhat disturbing, it is none of my business. Gay people are no more (and sometimes less) offensive to me than straight people.
I, being a heterosexual man, have no more rights or privileges than a gay male. I can not marry another man. Gay marriage confers special rights on a group of people who claim victim-class status. It is the dream of modern liberalism to classify and label everyone into a group, and then decide which groups should get which rights. Like the pig said in George Orwell's Animal Farm, "some of us are more equal than others."
Traditional heterosexual marriage should be the only form of marriage approved and endorsed by the state because the stability of the state is dependent upon continuing the population of the state. Gays can have wedding ceremonies, commit their love for one another, and even have their union approved by a church. But their relationships should not be sanctioned by the state. Gays are not able to procreate, and therefore gay marriage is against the interests of the state.
What happens when gays want to get divorced? They throw the state into crisis. An example cited by the L.A. Times, about two women who married in Massachusetts, and who now seek a divorce in their home state of Rhode Island:
Then, after two years of marriage, the 10-year relationship soured, and Chambers filed for divorce. That put the couple into a legal limbo that is becoming increasingly common as same-sex couples married in one state try to divorce in another.
A judge in Family Court, where divorces are handled, asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his court had jurisdiction, given that Rhode Island doesn't recognize gay marriage. The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren't legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn't get divorced.
Chambers then tried filing for divorce in the state's Superior Court, but last month a judge there ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over marriage dissolutions. A Massachusetts divorce isn't an option because only residents who have lived in the state for a year can file there.
"They've given us no choice but to be married forever,"
Be careful what you wish for.
UPDATE: Maybe the women in the above mentioned article, who felt their union was important enough to travel to Massachusetts for legal sanction, should go live in said State for a year so that they are eligible for a "same-sex divorce," thereby keeping the rest of us out of their irrational legal problems.