how are it "special status and privileges"? Heterosexuals can marry, can't they? If they can, how'd gays be privileged if they could as well?

Refusing to grant gays exactly the same rights as heterosexuals have is pretty homophobic in my book.

But what special privileges are we giving them? Were taking away rights..not adding them.

edit: saw darkfish above. Lets just say i agree with him.

A straight man can marry a woman, and a gay man can marry a woman.

A straight man cannot marry a man, nor can a gay one.

Looks like they have the same rights to me.

Marriage (as recognized by the State) is not a right. There are already arbitrary limitations on marriage. How related you can be, what age, etc. It's an arbitrary limitation based on statutes, not "rights." If a man has the right to marry a man, does he have the right to marry 3 men? Since offspring is not an issue, can he marry his brother? His father? I'm not taking a slippery slope here, I am asking serious questions. If you say "one man, one woman," and "one man, one man," and "one woman, one woman"—why the arbitrary limitation on marriage rights to mono-partner marriage? In't THAT an arbitrary limitation on rights?

For the record I'm in favor of civil unions for gays, but I think it needs to be passed by the legislature.

BTW, it seems like as a matter of law, the issue is if the US recognizes all foreign marriages. If a marriage is not legal in the US, then it should not be recognized I think. What about middle eastern pedo marriages of men to girls? (how can you recognize one but not another? (legally))

Well marriage is a religious thing yes, so it should be the church denying the marriage if they see fit, not our government. Buy all means the government should allow civil unions to homosexuals, its just what ought to be done especially when since we are supposed to be impartial. However, the whole "does he have the right to marry 3 men?" is a slippery slope fallacy. Things like this have been said a lot, and frankly it's just untrue fear mongering. Politicians keep saying that it will destroy traditional families, like if we allow them to marry they will start some kind of offensive against us. I think that is ridiculous, and a fabrication simply to further their agenda.

It is NOT a slippery slope fallacy.

The law is an artificial construct. Within that construct, precedent actually matters. If there is a "right" to marry granted by a court, as opposed to a statutorily granted license to marry (where the rights are only those explicitly granted by statute), then any arbitrary limitation is absolutely on the table I would think. Right now, gay marriage is on the table. 50 years ago we'd not be having this discussion. 50 years hence, group marriage might be fighting for equal rights vs arbitrary limitations on marriage (can't help thinking about Heinlein).

If, instead of a court ruling creating a "right," a law is simply passed, then it is merely another arbitrary change to marriage like any other. So passed by a legislature, I think there are no problems, but if granted by a court as a "right," then any arbitrary limitation can certainly be argued to interfere with a "right" to a slightly different notion of marriage.

Regardless, the real legal issue is recognizing foreign contracts against US law I think.

And I am single. I want the same rights then, including tax reliefs and special jurisdiction, the full deal. Else I hereby threaten everybody to feel discriminated and being looked down upon. :88) This should teach-ya, wowh!