Lots of vitriol and highly charged emotions running amuck in here.

I voted no and here's why -

1. Government has a vested interest in social stability and populating it's lands. Partially in order to further those goals, it encourages males and females to form stable relationships in the hopes that those relationships will provide stable happy households and that they will bear children, thus producing future members of our little republic. Some last, some don't but it's in the governments interests to encourage this by sanctioning those unions and, more recently, providing econominc incentives via tax codes.

2. Living a homosexual lifestyle, not suggesting choice here nor an ingrained desire from birth, is a biological deadend that the government should not condone. That being said the government needs to protect all of it's citizens from harm, but it need not be in the business of  condoning activities not suited to it's long term survival.

3. No one is currently being denied the ability to be married, unlike days of yore when no one who was black could use "white" drinking fountain. Under the current laws, everyone, white,black, male, female can avail themselves of marriage if they choose barring they meet some basic criteria such as, brothers cannot marry sisters, first cousins are generally barred, fathers/daughters (ew) and mothers/sons (ew), age restrictions apply, and it must be between and male and female.

You can look in the bible or the talmud, or koran and also find plenty of justification, but from a secular standpoint, there's an overwhelming benfit to sanctioning male/female marriages and little to no benefit sanctioning male/male or female/female.

jmho