And now for a topic this weblog does not frequently touch upon: Way to be bigoted idiots, ~60% of the North Carolinians who voted yesterday. So glad that you have settled all of the other pressing issues in your state, and feel comfortable wasting your time on something as inane as gay marriage.
Look, so long as everyone involved is legally an adult, consenting, and not being hurt against their wills, it is simply none of your business – or the government’s – who is boinking whom, who has signed a contractual agreement with whom, or any of that nonsense (up to and including who is ingesting what kind of chemicals/substances). As soon as someone other than the voluntarily participating parties are being detrimentally harmed in some specific, measurable, quantifiable fashion, then you can start sticking your bureaucratic, officious nose in where it might possibly belong.
Until then, piss off.
The government simply needs to get out of the "marriage" business, in its entirety – yes, I know full well what that could mean, but damned near everything short of whatever tax benefits you might receive for being married can instead be handled by properly drafted and executed contracts, powers of attorney, and other legal documents between the involved parties. So long as those parties are consenting, and so long as their religious shepherd (if applicable) is likewise amenable to the situation, who the hell are you to deny them a basic human right (the freedom of association, to be specific) on account of their anatomies being more alike than not?
And, for that matter, how are your objections any better, or any different, than those raised by pre-1967 bigots who pulled nearly identical stunts about mixed-race marriage? You do realize you just made them your ideological brothers, right?
(Amusingly (at least if you do not pay attention to the actual, core issues), it is only through my pro-self-defense activism that I was able to reach this conclusion. After all, the right to self-defense is a natural outgrowth of both our rights to life and our rights to choose, and I cannot adequately defend and respect the former without doing the same for the latter two. Likewise, the right to enter into consensually enter into contracts with other persons of legal age (And what is marriage, in the eyes of the government, except a contract?) is a direct outgrowth of that right to choose, and, as such, it would be internally and logically inconsistent of me. I try to avoid that.)