To me the questions needing an answer are as follows:
1. Does marriage between two consenting adults need to be sanctioned by the state?
2. If so, and there is a legitimate state interest in doing so, what are those interests, or interest?
3. Outside of matters like taxation, benefits, power of attorney, visitation rights etc that can be legislated for separately, does the state have any other compelling and necessary interest?
4. If the answer is no, then the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
5. if yes, and the interests are solidified around the concept of procreation then the following needs to be answered.
6. Does marriage between a man and a women posses any inherent benefit to society over all others, including polygamous marriages, and homosexual marriages?
7. If so, what is this benefit, does this benefit carry with it such a compelling state interest that, the exclusion of all other marriage arrangements would be a necessary and proper function of the state to legislate.
8. Is there an intrinsic value for one type of marriage over any other?
9. Is there material proof, or evidence of any such claims?
10. Does the right not to participate in the procreative process invalidate this state interest?
11. Does the ability to manufacture a way to participate in the procreative process validate the marriage arrangement?
12. Does a marriage that produces children of the genetic components of each parent have any value over one that produces children of only one, or perhaps none of the parents?
13. Do the people through the state have a right and obligation to choose or favor one form of marriage over any other?
14. If the state has a fundamental duty, and by a necessary function, the right to regulate marriage types, does this duty, or function carry with it, a responsibility to exclude certain types of marriage, and if so, how does the state decide what types and whom is excluded?
15. If it is that the state does not carry this right and responsibility then gay marriage along with any other type of marriage should be allowed.
16. If it does carry this right and responsibility, then gay marriage and polygamous marriage should not be allowed to continue.
I disregard the gender sex question as it is argued for by the proponents of Prop 8. To me this is not an equal rights case, to me this is an social matter that depends greatly upon whether society as a function of itself has the right to regulate and legislate for its own posterity. As a matter of exceptional circumstances such as people marrying over the age of 50, or married couples that do not produce children, or divorced couples, and single parent households, is the virtue of a single defining criteria for marriage superior, (despite its apparent deficiencies in compartmentalizing the exceptions), to societies long term viability? Put another way, the intrinsic value of a marriage between a man and a women carries with it more value to society, and as such, should be held higher, above all others, and to the exclusion thereof, as the staple by which our society defines its family structure.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
You probably also think "it's me" is bad grammar because the first person isn't in the nominative, even though no English speaker would ever say "it's I" -- only a person who learns English as a second language would say that (short of Posh British English). Similarly, spoken and informal English has dropped "whom" entirely Even in formal speech, best to avoid it. It sounds archaic.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan