Is this a contest to see what wild shit homosexuality can be compared to?

Let me give it a try.

Homosexuality is like Jello pudding pops. Both require Bill Cosby.

Actually the affliction is the one possessed by Warren, Buchanan, and others of their ilk!

Let's try this on for size:

In some cultures it is acceptable to have more than one wife! Even in the USA it's OK for folks to have a religious ceremony adding a second or third wife to the mix!

No problemo! It's a religious ceremony! Not recognized by law!

I'm agnostic and yet I've been married twice by a justice of the peace! NO ONE forced any church to sanction the marriage!

Hmmm, religious ceremony vs. legal contract?????

Separation of ......... uh, what is that? Oh yeah, church and state!

How about we respect that separation and quit defining people by a few ounces of flesh between their legs?

That would also go a long way in decreasing wage disparity between male and female workers! (Among other things)

This brief argument put forth by my friend Elwood Foreclift sums it up fairly well:
http://www.ieatgravel.com/?p=2303

In Pats defence I'm sure right before he said that he was scarfing Twinkies.

I think a mistake that many on the left are making is that they're buying that religious side of the argument is a valid point. It's not. It doesn't matter one whit what any religion in the world says about same sex marriage. Not a single scintilla.
If we support the Constitution, then we support equal protection for ALL, not just for some who happen to believe what we do. Should we allow free speech only for those who say things we agree with? Or freedom of the press only for media which supports one side or the other? How about voting rights only for those who support the candidates we like? Of course not. So why is it that some people are okay with saying that equal protection under the law is only for certain classes of citizens?
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply only to heterosexuals. It says, quite clearly, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. THAT's the argument.

Thanks for repeating this again Ceu.

This is truly a non-issue for the very reason Ceu stated above.

Marriage should not be a function of the state, period.

A good summation from an unexpected source:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/FamilyLaw/Marriage/5ReasonsNoMarrLicense.htm

When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. (And your children. And your property.)

Be sure to read through the court documentation.