[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html[/url] [url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374[/url] Read first. Marriage is a right by these rulings. [i]Common counter arguments:[/i] [b]"Marriage isn't a right! Not the government's business"[/b] Actually, it is. Many legal responsibility perks/benefits are handed out through marriage licenses, which are garnered from the government. America isn't a libertarian country, you'll have to accept the fact that the government has a large part to play in marriage at the moment. That, and this is unsubstantiated nonsense. There is no reasoning to support this claim beyond the initial claim itself. Marriage is not a religious concept in our secular society. It is the government's business. [b]"Marriage is between one man and one woman"[/b] On what basis? The current law under question? The Bible, which has no part to play in lawmaking in the government? Most likely, this is just your opinion, with no solid reasoning behind it. [b]"Civil Unions are enough"[/b] As explained before, with civil unions, you lack benefits that you would normally gain through marriage. They aren't equal. [b]"Homosexuality is abnormal"[/b] Yet, it is observed in many animal species, and has been historically acknowledged as far back as many records exist. It is natural, and there is some genetic influence to it (although choice has a part to play as well). Humans are the only species that have a stigma associated with it, largely due to scripture written 2000 years ago. [b] "Civil Unions with equal benefits are enough. Just don't call it marriage"[/b] Funny, a separate but equal argument coming from a roughly similar demographic to those who supported segregation 60 years ago. Let's look at this closely. Heterosexual couples get: Civil unions + "marriage" Gay couples get: Civil Unions + "Civil Union with benefits" Now, I will ask you this question. If this new form of relationship is essentially marriage, then why the hell would you not call it marriage, aside from your own personal opinion with likely religious reasoning/personal culture behind it? [b] "Stop imposing your will on other people!"[/b] This argument would actually have some basis to it if pro-gay marriage people were trying to restrict some form of "right". Unfortunately for the opposition, this is going to expand civil liberty, not restrict it. [b]"There is no good reason to allow gay marriage"[/b] There are quite a few, but let's note that laws are made with some form of reasoning behind them. There is no good form of reasoning for those who oppose gay marriage, therefore, these laws really shouldn't exist and should be repealed. I'll sum up my argument and this thread: [b] Do people really feel persecuted when they can't persecute other people? [/b] *This should be done on a federal level. *I'm not gay.