I've argued this over and over and my stance on the issue is well known. But here are some highlites:

1) Midtowner may be better at explaining contracts than I am, because I only had basic training in them as they apply to insurance laws, however, there are 4 rules that apply to entering into a binding legal contract. One of those rules is that BOTH parties must me of sound mind in order to enter into a contract. So that rules out your little slippery slope argument of people marrying pets or children or other such sick things. Children and animals are not adults of sound mind. It would not be possible to "marry" them.

2) The other slippery slope arguments: incest and polygamy. People who are related would have no NEED to enter into a marriage because--as they are already family--they already have legal rights to one another. A gay couple doesn't have that right. Also, it is far less of an abridgment of rights for me to tell a man he can't marry his sister. You're ruling out an entire gender for me. And that simply isn't fair. Also, I would like to point out that in several states it is already perfectly legal to marry a first cousin. Look into it. And as far as the polygamy thing goes, I sincerely doubt anyone (with the alimony and child support laws the way they are) would take ANY risks marrying more than one person. Most reasonable people would know that divorcing just ONE person is enough to drive you to bankruptcy. Your slippery slope arguments are illogical scare tactics. They are a last ditch effort to defend a position you know is unconstitutional.

3) Equal protection DOES apply, because I do not have the right to enter into a marriage contract with any member of the gender to which I am attracted. Yes, I have the right to marry a woman. So what? I am not romantically or physically attracted to women. Are you saying that I should marry a woman just because you think that would be better for me? I think gay men and women marrying members of the opposite sex when they are NOT in love is a far more severe blow to the institution of marriage. Living a lie is a sin, you know.

4) Stop calling me a liberal. It is insulting. I am not a liberal. I am a true conservative. I believe the government should be small and that it should stay out of the private lives of individuals. I believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution w/o being swayed by modern ideals or religious beliefs. I believe in interpreting the law of our land as it was intended. And I think you will find that--in the end--our constitution will be interpreted to allow gay marriages.

5) You say God will never allow this to happen and that Jesus will return before gays are allowed to marry. Fine, then. Why not let God take care of it and keep your religious beliefs out of government? For all your paragraphs of arguments, your point is simply that you want gay marriage banned simply because you believe homosexuality to be immoral. Sorry, bucko, but that isn't enough to justify a nationwide ban on gay marriage. In fact, the reasons you list to ban gay marriage could just as easily be applied to banning divorce.

Like I said, if your church wants to believe homosexuality is wrong and if it chooses not to allow gay marriage ceremonies to be carried out, then I will respect and defend your churches right to believe that. But no one religious group has the right to control the federal or state government. The government is to be impartial and fair and interpret the constitution--as is-- in an unbiased manner.

Gay marriage will soon be a reality. Moan and groan about it all you want.