There is in fact one valid argument against gay marriage which is not bigoted and makes some sense. It has been advocated by some homosexual groups. (Read about it in the Village Voice.)

Marriage is an institution based at least partially on property transfer, and in the most traditional sense, implies that you publicly stating that you are selecting one person to care for all of your physical and emotional needs for the remainder of your life. This sense of marriage is incompatible with modern homosexual life (note this is not the "All gays are flamboyant party sluts" argument) and in fact all modern life. With 50% of marriages failing and prenuptial agreements being the norm for any couple where at least one member has any assets, why try to shoehorn gays into an institution that fails horribly for the very people it was designed for?

That being said, I'm married, and I think any argument that prevents gays from getting married eventually comes back to a "Well, call it a civil union, if the rights are the same, does it matter?" which is intellectually equivalent to the "Well, as long as blacks have their own water fountains, what does it matter if they can't use ours?"

Ed:

You're certainly right, which is why most of the self-proclaimed defenders of traditional marriage are misguided at best. If there is a marriage crisis of any kind (a fairly dubious claim), it would seem that you need to tackle it by actually strengthening actual marriage, not worrying about barring it to a small minority.

In the 60s and 70s, most states as a matter of public policy (for example) made divorce relatively easy to get. That and equal rights for women are clearly the two most significant factors in "weakening" "traditional" marriage.

And, of course, as noted earlier, "traditional" is no such thing, either legally or socially.

I certainly hope that this means you are voting today (or have already done so).

Duh.