A difference without a distinction

Something that has bugged me and I don't think I will ever understand is the argument over gay marriage. I will never be gay, nor will I understand why gay marriage is so vehemently opposed by some people that object to the homosexual lifestyle. I guess it is just me. But I come at this with a few assumptions that make this whole discussion a befuddlement.

1. Marriage is, if the participants wish, a binding contract before their chosen God/Goddess/Justice of the Peace/Cruise Ship Captain. This portion of the contract carries whatever significance the participants in the contract attach to it. They only need to agree to the terms of the officiant's deal.

2. Marriage is a social contract stipulating multiply benefits and obligations to both parties before the eyes of the law. Depending on the laws of State or Commonwealth in which the marriage is transacted, the benefits and obligation vary accordingly but are pretty universal. Tax benefits, familial privilege, inheritance, etc.

3. A marriage is between two consenting adults. Pets (much to Sen. Santorum's dismay, animals do not have that level of cognitive ability), kids, and extra adults cannot join in. "Big Love" may argue the polygamy point of view but try that shit with your wife. You would be lucky find out where she mailed your penis.

4. If you do it for any other reason than you love each other, then you are so, so wrong.

If you disagree with my assumptions, that’s fine. But this is where I am coming from.

Having said that, I cannot understand the extreme argument on either side. The folks that say that anything other the 'Full Blown Marriage' for gay couples is unacceptable are, I think, missing the point. I don’t really understand what that means. States are beginning to come around to the Civil Union position. If married gay couples can have the benefits and obligations of marriage, the separate but equal argument is irrelevant. They can attach to their marriage whatever significance they want; just as everyone else does. Add two people that love each other, and that is a marriage to me.

On the other side, people that object to any sort of Civil Union arrangement just strike me as too high on the hobby horse. The constant argument is that gay marriage will devalue the premium society places on the union between a man and a woman. Well that is just bullshit. Half of marriages end in divorce. Most of America revels in celebrity divorce drama. If they really wanted to push the value of wedlock, then outlaw divorce. See how far that gets. Going after people that may be homosexual, but are still willing to commit to each other, is discriminatory. PERIOD. If Brittany Spears can be married for 55 hours, ditch, and not be disciplined, then nothing about the institution is sacred or holy other than what the participants put into it. My marriage is in no way affected by what happens in San Francisco or Massachusetts or Hollywood. If your marriage is, ditch or fix it. You have problems either way.