Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Fritz]

I've been watching these debates with great interest.  To me, it seems the central question of this debate is, which side bears the burden of proof of justification for their case?  Dubya (and Mike K, others), woud argue that pro gay marriage advocates have to justify their reasons for re-defining marriage.  Alcon (and others) would argue that anti gay marriage advocates have to justify their reasons for not allowing gays to marry.  It seems that both the Iowa and California Supreme Courts have taken Alcon's side, under their respective state constitutions.  The latest ruling from California is that the constitution was legally changed, therefore their position changed.

Though I do have a strong opinion on this issue, I'm refraining from voicing it in this post because I'm trying to analyse the logic of both sides of the argument (inspired by all the "if x is like y" stuff).  From an objective standpoint, neither side can meet the other side's required burden of proof of justication.  The anti gay marriage advocates have not proven justification for preventing gays to marry.  The pro gay marriage advocates have not proven justification for re-defining marriage.

Which side bears the burden of proof is a sticky legal question that I will not ask here.  Instead, for the sake of argument, I would ask each side to consider that you must meet the opposing side's required burden of proof.

To anti gay marriage advocates: On what grounds can you justify denying the right to get married to homosexual couples?

To pro gay marriage advocates: on what grounds can you justify re-defining the institution of marriage?

Go.