I disagree. I mean, that may be an argument, but two men marrying each other in San Francisco doesn't affect anything besides the lives of those two people and, potentially, insurance companies.

Wait. Maybe I'm seeing the other side's point now. At least the extremists'. If you allow for gay marriage and that requires that insurance companies provide for the other half of a gay marriage, then that allows that other half to be a stay-at-home parent, which means that they could continue to promote the gay agenda through child-rearing.

Yup. Now I see it. I underestimated the bigotry. (Not yours, Jeff, or that of the rest of you here.)