......You may kiss the other groom.

I know this a bit of a departure from the traditional brand of conservatism I usually endorse here at TRR, but I can't find a legitimate argument in favor of a gay-marriage ban...

California's supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

Here are the typical moral, self-righteous arguments against gay marriage:
-Homosexuals are freaks of nature and shouldn't be allowed to force their degenerate lifestyles on children----Britney Spears, Madonna, and Courtney Love are three of the worst heterosexual parents in the world with lifestyles far worse for child rearing than anything a gay couple could expose them to. Having gay parents no more makes you likely to be gay than eating rice makes it likely that your eyes will be slanted.

-God hates gay people and marriage is a contract with God----God doesn't hate anybody, and heterosexuals routinely and casually break that contract with God.

-The purpose of marriage is to rear children and since gays cannot procreate, marriage between them is unnatural----heterosexual couples by the millions do not marry and do not have children. Are they sinning by not having children?

-Gay couples make a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage----Nobody has made a complete mockery and joke of marriage like heterosexuals down through the millenia. How can marriage be so sacred when over half end in divorce?

-Allowing gays to marry elevates their disgusting lifestyles toward equality with heterosexual marriage----It's a free country, not a theocracy and conservatives do not have a monopoly on the word "marriage". Letting gays marry does not make homophobic heterosexuals less straight.

As a libertarian, I examine a person's pursuit of happiness with the following questions: Does this activity limit my, or anybody elses, pursuit of happiness? Does this activity violate anything in the Constitution? Is this activity illegal or harmful?

If the answers to those questions are no, then what right do I have to tell them they cannot pursue happiness in any way they like? I may not morally agree with it or approve of it but, my personal opinion is not a legitimate criterian for whether an activity of an otherwise peaceful citizen violates the law. Same as flag burning....I don't like it and am disgusted by it but, there's no Constitutional basis upon which to ban it.