"It does no such thing"

Yes, it does. It limits the rights of two people to enter into a contract, which is essentially what a marriage is. And it would prevent someone who would otherwise be allowed to make medical and other decisions for someone else all because they both have a wing wang.

"civilized society has recognized for millennia - marriage is between one man and one woman, only."

You mean, like un Utah?

You're right it doesn't "take away" anything because they didn't have it in the first place.

"It limits the rights of two people to enter into a contract..."

No it doesn't. Two people of the same sex can enter any contractual arrangement they like - they can make the contract identical to marriage if they like. They just can't call it "marriage."

Wanna bet?

Let's say two hypothetical gay guys enter into a contract where they grant the other the ability to make life or death decisions for each other. One of them get injured in a car wreck. An important medical decision must be made and the contract exists to allow the partner to make that decision. The partner does. The injured person's parents object to the decision. Who do you think wins?

The parents, every time, regardless of that contract.

Some say marriage should be the sole property of religious institutions, which are constitutionally free to decide whether or not they want to grant marriage to same-sex couples; and that once this paradigm shift was complete, it would be much easier to *see* the inequality inherent in granting hetero couples more partnership rights than are given to homo couples. These same would also say that the current confusion results from the overlap of not-quite-so-separate church and state roles.

Perhaps, then, the solution is to get the state out of the marriage business, and allow it to be solely a religious thing, and allow married couples to also form a civil-union contract for the state's purposes. I'd have no problem with the state allowing civil unions for gays. My primary fear in allowing "gay marriage" is that, once it has been declared legal by judicial fiat or law, it will become "hate speech" for a preacher to denounce homosexuality from the pulpit.

It has already happened in Canada.

By separating marriage from the state, and making it the sole province of religion, and allowing married couples to form state-sanctioned civil union contracts, we would have a grand compromise. The state would recognize the contractual arrangement of any two people, gay or straight, while the church/temple/synagogue/mosque would be responsible for inaugurating the sacred covenant relationship of two married people in their flock.

I remember the day I got married, when the pastor informed me as soon as we had both signed the marriage license that, technically, we were married in the eyes of the state merely by signing that document. I thought that was just not right - that a marriage should be inaugurated by solemn vows expressed in public before God, not by the signing of some official state document.

"By separating marriage from the state, and making it the sole province of religion"

I tend to agree. The .gov's involvement in contracts should only involve the enforcement in a court of law.

SayUncle said:

"The injured person's parents object to the decision. Who do you think wins?"

You are right, but your argument ignores the fact that this is equally a problem in traditional marriages. Witness the Terri Schiavo case.

If Mr. Schiavo were a Mrs. Schiavo, it would not have survived the first court challenge.

Still, I believe that particular problem says much more about the importance of making your personal wishes clear in the event the unexpected happens. It is far harder to argue with an individual's clearly expressed desires, whether a traditional marriage or not.

"It is far harder to argue with an individual's clearly expressed desires, whether a traditional marriage or not"

I agree. But the state doesn't see it that way.

I was opposed to gay marriage/civil unions, until I found out they weren't mandatory.

I would have to agree with Bill and Jeff.

Homosexuals have lost no rights by not being allowed to marry in the eyes of the state.

We argue too much about the technicalities and the legal terms---but the reality is that we recognize marriage between one man and one woman as the best way to raise children.

And yes, before any pro-homosexual marriage bloggers scream "best"--yes, I mean what I say--the best way.

And yes, I understand that not all marriages produce offspring. But organizing principles of societies arise from the desire to protect the longevity of the civilization. In this particular case, the principle--in the eyes of the state--is that a mother and a father is the best way to raise a child and therefore the best way to safeguard the continuance of our civilization.