A lesbian ridiculed me for voting 4 Romney because ...

Yes taxes, security, pensions and benefits are the heart of the issue, calling it functionally a marriage is a semiotic label and is not important except to a few.  If we are going to be objective then we would have to say that heterosexual people have more needs then gay people because they are in danger of experiencing pregnancy.  Therefor by looking at the details of the issue I would have to say the conservative viewpoint is a lot more objective.  I don't really understand where the gay community is trying to push this issue. It seems to me there is  a lot of unproductive emotion and very little thought into why a woman who gets pregnant would need more help then people who might choose to adopt.  I have heard the argument that some couples can't have children... but there have been so many examples where children were born when a couple was declared infertile I don't see the point of that either.  Laws are designed to protect the differences in people.  The small fraction of people who are different and don't get addicted to cigarettes don't mean we shouldn't ban selling cigarettes to minors and in exactly the same respect it is important that women are covered by our tax laws in case of pregnancy.

...that wasn't my point.  My point is that even if I did agree with you... there wouldn't be a representative for your opinion and therefor I am getting damn annoyed with being heckled by Gay Leftists who don't even give me a voting option... only a guilt trip. 

I have been following this issue very carefully.

I've been watching CSPAN hearings in California over this issue.  

I don't agree with you HEYNOW... but I do recognize it as one argument.

my objection to gay marriage is that it fails to protect people who are in danger of getting pregnant. Namely Heterosexual couples.  The whole reason for marriage is socio-economic.  Hetero couples live in danger of pregnancy and therefor they need the government support to protect children.  I don't want those benefits going to people who have a choice, but not responsibility.  Definitive Infertility has through out history has fluctuated, so therefor there is considerable danger of even unfertile heterosexuals experiencing pregnancy.  Gay people we know for a fact can not give birth... or if they can it wouldn't be particularly safe. (cloning)

The argument that it goes against custom is not a good direction.  The Attorney General in California is arguing that the difference between the issues of Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage is that while there was definite precedent for Interracial Marriage outside and before the state of California Legislation... there never was a historical point of Gay Relations.  This is a bad argument, because an educated cultural critique can show many cultures where Gay Relations were accepted historically. Maybe not Marriage... but in Ancient Greece as illustrated by Michel Foucalt in "The Use of Pleasure  - The History of Sexuality - Volumes 1,2,3", it was the norm. 

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has argued my point and has brought in his own legal team that is seperate from the state.

At the same time the other side has argued that the State opposing Gay Marriage is in conflict with the "Right to Privacy".  Being that Marriage is a public institution, I don't see that.

In the end all the details and "mumbo-junbo" comes down to an emotional one.  Do you feel that we are discriminating against gays?  This question I believe brings in other legal issues. (which I will get to)  The real legal issue of Gay Marriage is the heart of Civil Rights Legislation.  Separate is not Equal is the heart of contemporary legal belief.  It is in my opinion that we are going to rewrite our understanding of what quantifies Separate.  Certainly Gender Segregation in Jails and Bathrooms can not be rewritten.  There for we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that objectivity and defining human attributes are in no way "Separate" as long as they have all the same opportunities for dignity.