[peregrine]

multiple points here, let me first address the first ammendment issue:

the first ammendment grants some of our most basic rights and freedoms, namely the freedom of religion for this matter. As Guido has valiantly and repeatedly pointed out, there are religious marriages and then there are legal marriages that the government uses for their laws. It seems to me that if you were married religiously, the government failing to recognize it would be a breach in your freedom of religion. I'm sorry, I can't really explain why, but really seems that way to me.

next:
Let me see if I understand this right... the two main problems with homosexual marriages are: slippery slope stuff, and civil unrest because of values.

addressing the slippery slope stuff: seems the problem is with this, that homosexual marriages would open the door for other unorthodox unions to be granted legal recognition. Honestly, I don't see how this is something woth preventing. Let's take the most extreme case: beastiagamy (-gamy is the suffix regarding marriage, beastiality is the wrong word, technically) Hell, I'll even take it further, people trying to get married to inanimate objects. Let's consider the benefits of marriage: legal power concerning your partner, tax breaks / economic benefits. Concerning legal power, if the partner is incapable of communicating their wishes to humans, then we really can't do anything for them, now can we? I highly doubt Lassie could convice a doctor to draw up a DNR request for somebody. I think this would essentially take care of all situations of pairings between humans and animals, rocks, computers (non-AI comps, hell I'd even say if somebody wanted to get married to sentient AI program... go for it). Secondly, the money involved. It seems like the object of this incentive is to provide a better setting for a child-rearing family. So make it that way. Remove the tax break from marriages in general, and apply them to families with children, adopted or biological. I feel these two simple solutions would allow all sorts of marriages but stil preserve the interests that people are arguing for. Marriage is a mutual consent of trust... can the government really dictate to us who we can personally trust?

Now comes the issue of civil disorder: People would get unruly because these things go against "accepted values" and traditions. I'm not denying it would, but consider the truth behind the maxim "the only constant is change" our values will and must change to adapt to new times and scenarios if America is going to truly proclaim to be as free and liberated as it does. And isn't there already unrest about this issue? It's an unavoildable consequence of conflict, and it won't go away no matter which side comes out on top.

I know the "laws" concerning benefits of marriages that I made are rather simplistic and imperfect... they're very rough, it's the concept that's important.

Also, if you think of any other negative impacts of homosexual marriages or benefits of marriage (just nothing about intrinsic value or holiness, I'd just repeat what I said earlier about things being special when you mean them to, regardless of what the other precedents are) I'll be more than happy to try to work out a suitable compromise which allows for such unions, but still retains the values people are trying to preserve. Just please make the listed qualities somewhat obvious.