Above and beyond all else Marriage is a social contract between two people and the legal implications involved in it are actually fairly small in comparison to the social implications; basically, most people choose to get married because they want people to recognize their relationship (in the modern understanding of Marriage), or because it is the first step in starting a family (in the more classic sense of marriage), not for the tax benefits.

Now, if you eliminate the legal definition of marriage and seperate the legal rights associated with it into one (or multiple) contracts you can be far more inclusive of people with a wide variety of alternative lifestyle choices; this can include people who choose to live with multiple (romantically) partners, as well as people who may decide to enter into a joint-property contract with someone they're not romantically involved in for a wide variety of reasons.

Actually no. Gay marriage used to happen all over the world a lot. Including Europe until it was banned by the Christians when Rome was christianized.

Marriage has only been defined as between a man and a woman in europe.... since Rome was Christianized and other places effected heavily by said christians. Just about everywhere else.

The precedent is there that makes your definition just wrong.  It's just based off an offshoot jewish sect's laws against same sex marriage... and when you were as inclusive and xenophobic as the Jewish were it certaintly makes sense to have religious law that keeps your stock of "non foreign" people up so there is no need to have marriages to outsiders. 

Beseides that.the right to use drugs that are now considered illegal was a considered a constitutional right until the 1960's when the hippies ruiend it for everybody. It used to be the position that the government had no right to stop you from putting anything in your body or doing anything with your body that didn't harm someone else.

Ever wonder why they actually needed to pass an entire ammendment to start prohibition? Then they started stamp acts and other such acts that were basically Illegal, and when the government got called out on it, the judges basically changed what was seen as constitutional law because they felt they had to stop drug use.

That's a cute little tidbit, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the point I made. If there is or ever was a constitutional right to drugs, it was never covered by the constitutional right to bear arms. The issue is with the attempt to legally redefine a term that was established through religion.

And if you're tryign to argue based on something that was established during teh roman era, please point me out to where two men or women were actually "married" and not just living together. I don't recall examples of any official ceremony being used to celebrate the union between two people who could not have children, as the typical purpose of weddings like that is to ensure that the children have both the father and mother working together to raise them.

Personally, I don't even mind if gay people call it marriage, but it does need to be established that the legal recognition of a gay union does not require any religion to recognize it.

Sure look at Marcus Aurillius Antonious for an example. However most people didn't have ceremonys in ancient Greece and Rome.

Ceremony's weren't seen as needed to legalize a marriage. Only nobles usually had an actual wedding ceremony. It's hard to even point to greek and roman ceremonies because of this. Let alone same sex ones. The only "problems" lie with the fact that we legalize marriages and bestow so many rights on married couples for no real reason.

The fact that they had to make gay marriage illegal would likely mean it was legal, no? I mean the law specifically said "Gay people can no longer get married." (Paraphrasing obviously.)

I've heard Marcuus Martialias talks about such marriages in his poems as well. 

I like gay people (Not in that way) I have never met an unpleasent gay person.

And I have met a few unpleasant gay people, but I've met just as many perfectly reasonable gay people as well, so I don't see that being connected to sexual orientation any more than it is to race or gender.

I have. But I've also met some more then enough unpleasant straight people.

The fact is a state with laws based on theological grounds is pretty bloody awful. Sharia law, Christian law it all leads to power abuse and murders based on laws outdated by over a thousand years.

Hmmmm. Well, I'll make an analogy (but please feel free to tear it apart):

You could decide to "adopt" a person as your child. You would have many problems if you didn't "legally adopt" them. You could still say that the social contract, or responsibility, that you have taken on to feed, care for, provide for, nurture, etc. are larger than the fairly small legal implications... but would anyone say you are that child's parent? The analogy has imperfections but it does point out the problems that would ensue without a legal apoption, i.e., adding them on your insurance, being able to legally have any say in what happens to them in a medical setting, no intrinsic inheritance rights.

In summation I would argue that marriage is a social contract that is legally recognized. The denial of the legal recognition (except MA and CA) is the crux of the matter, not what some parts of society may think about the social acceptability. 

Obieslut, coolestguyever, you should be embarrassed by your bigotry. Gay people are equal to straight ones. Equality and Justice are two of the most important principles of humanity. This, and your statements, violate both. Why would anyone seek to disenfranchise a large group of people? Discriminating based on sexual orientation is just as bad as discriminating based on race, gender, or religion.

This is a horrible act. It's terrible that this still goes on.