Since you phobes have already identified one another with your holier-than-thou ritual mating dance, why don't you just get it over with and make out already?
Quote from Landis82:
It's not as simple as you state.
For an opposite-sex couple, they can get all the legal protections of all these contracts and more, for $20.
For the gay couple, itâs going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars, and they lose legal protections and legal precedents;
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-much-is-that-gay-marriage-in-the-window/
Quote from WTL:
Then simply change it so that it is that easy. No constitutional amendments and no moral posturing. We dont even have to condone gay culture or sex, just establish equal protection. It would be a type of civil union I suppose, good article you linked btw.
If people werent just trying to shit on each other, both sides, we could get this solved easily.

Quote from Landis82:
I doubt that many here ( the usual morons ) even read through the hypothetical example of how contracts wouldn't necessarily "solve" the issue from an equality sense in regards to same-sex marraige.
In fact, nothing beats the contract of marriage when it comes to taxation and the distribution of assets.
Quote from Mercor:
There must be some Homo lawyer who does Pro Bono work.
Certainly if the Homo's were only interested in making legal contracts some non-profits would provide the service.
......Butt(hole) we all know that Homo's desperately need to the word marriage in order to try to equalize this behavior with the 98% of normal people.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So called "normal" people are failing in marriages to the tune of near 50%, affairs by so called "normal" people in marriages are near 75%...

Quote from ByLoSellHi:
There are a bunch of morons here who are blindly gay bashing, but the issue I was addressing was whether the question AND response to the question Perez Hilton perpetuated regarding Ms. California was fair in the least, and I stated it wasn't, and that Perez Hilton is an idiot to hijack the Ms. USA competition to serve his apparent one issue agenda.
Ms. California's answer was consistent with her personal belief, and there was no malice within it.
Not only that, she expressed reasonableness and intelligence in expressing her opinion, whether one agreed with it, or not.
That's the issue.