Debating same sex marriage

I have always had difficulty in following the logic of those opposed to same sex marriage. For starters, I fail to see how any marriage affects anyone other than the participants in it and perhaps their immediate family. Secondly, I think that by definition, divorce does more to harm the institution of marriage than expanding the right to same sex couples. In the interests of disclosure, I personally would not marry someone who was the same sex as I. My sexual preference, however, is beside the point.

I can appreciate that some people believe that marriage is a sacred institution. To them I say that if it is sacred, the governments got no business in it; separation of Church and State and all. However, marriage is an institution that carries many legal benefits and obligations: Hospital visitation, next of kin, taxation, health and Social Security benefits put the government right in the middle. In light of this, I believe that the government issued marriage licenses should all be called civil unions. Let the clergy confer the title of marriage on a couple.

As a legal contract, if I have attained the age of consent and can enter into a marriage contract, and I wish to do so with someone who has also attained the age of consent but is of the same sex (I don't), then under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause I should be allowed to do so. Denying our right to wed is discrimination because someone does not like the choice. Opponents are not willing to concede this point. They say that I have a right to marry a woman, and a woman has a right to marry a man. They do not feel that my not having the same right to marry a man that a woman possesses violates equal protection.

The first argument that usually comes out is that traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've read parts of the Bible and have found that many times marriage is between a man and more than one woman. When this is pointed out, I've been told that in this country it has always been this way, and if I am going to allow same sex marriage I must allow polygamy. This is demonstrably false. I can define in law that a person can only be legally married to one person at a time without violating equal protection. Under these circumstances, if someone gets married to several people, a la "Big Love" on HBO, the government takes no position on the multiple religious ceremonies, but only 1 of these marriages carries the legal benefits.

Another argument that is often presented is that if we allow same sex marriage than if someone wants to marry a box turtle they can marry a box turtle. I don't recall who in Congress actually made the box turtle reference, it has been made similarly with dogs and horses. J.D. Hayworth mentioned the horse marriage in a segment with Rachel Maddow. What is it with Republicans and bestiality? This argument, like a sieve, fails to hold water. Under our laws, animals cannot consent to enter into contracts. Therefore, they cannot get married.

There has only been one situation that I have agreed a marriage should not be allowed is one in which an adult marries a minor with the parents' consent. That is legal in many states and it shouldn't be. Is that where opponents of same sex marriage want to make their last stand? We cannot allow adults of the same sex to marry because that would mean we have to legalize the marriage of a minor with parental consent which is already legal anyway?

Does this make any sense?