How so? Some would say that marriage is a religious institution and that the state has no business getting involved in any way. Among those who view it as a strictly religious institution, there are those who favor allowing it because they believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same rights as others and there are those who are against because they see same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will, and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to produce children. Others might argue that marriage is a civil matter with economic consequences that avail themselves to government regulation. Still others see it as a matter of justice. Moreover, some would argue that the tenth amendment makes it a state-by-state matter, while others would argue that it is affected by interstate commerce laws and therefore a federal matter. I think it's hardly as simple as your post implies.
As arguments against civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, I just don't find any of those remotely compelling...in fact, most of those don't strike me as arguments against equal civil recognition so much as other related issues. The arguments against civil recognition of gay marriage, while maintaining civil recognition of straight marriage, just are awful. This is something I say very rarely. Political decision-making is incredibly complicated to an extent that many of us sometimes sometimes are pretty flip about. I know civil marriage rights touch on some pretty complicated philosophies and feelings. So did interracial marriage. I don't have any remotely feelings about civil recognition of interracial marriage, and I don't about civil recognition of gay marriage. The fact that there are multiple sources of ambivalence for people on personal philosophy doesn't mean I think there's a wit of an argument to be made for prohibiting same-sex marriage rights as a political philosophy. Like I said, that's the sort of thing I say very, very rarely.
It just additionally frustrates me because it's bad social policy
and it's incredibly condescending to gay people who are only trying to make the sort of stable commitment that society (rightly) idealizes. I recognize that doesn't make it life-or-death, but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
