Your argument did nothing to address what my blog was about. All you did was bring up the regular talking points and failed to prove banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.

As for your comments about us not supporting incest and polygamy, you do have a good point. Why should someone say that same-sex marriage is fine, but multiple marriage and incest marriage is not. Except for the fact that the state (and in this case it does go to the states) has good reason to ban incest, which is to stop the genetic defects that arise from incest. Also, some states do allow cousin marriage.

As for polygamy, I generally support it, but we have to first get same-sex marriage before we can tackle polygamy. We can't fight for all forms of marriage at one time. Like I briefly mentioned in my post, first we had to deal with interracial marriage, now we can deal with same-sex, and next could be polygamy.

Now, don't take what I say as meaning we will go for incestuous marriage, there are clear reasons for the state to stop that, and marriage to animals goes right against my personal definition of marriage.

My definition is marriage is between consensual, sentient adults who wish to become a single family. If the animal cannot pass a sentience test, it cannot get married, but if one clearly can, then it may.

As for your Al Gore comment, I agree that was wrong, but you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing someone saying, "Let's recount these counties and not those," and the idea of, "Let's give this significantly large group the same rights as the majority of people." Essentially, using your analogy, we who support Same-Sex marriage are like Bush saying either recount the whole state (allow Same-Sex marriage) or don't count any of it (Make marriage as an institute completely illegal).