Surely that doesn't mean that all marriages should be illegal?

A moot point, since all those undoubted trillions  to fund this  have been diverted to fund absolute nonsense elsewhere...

The government should find a way to unify the tax codes and such for couples of all bends (straight, gay, or lesbian). A little more fairness under the law would go a long way imho.

The government should make up its mind and define marriage as it is first. The union between a man and a woman. Until the, we don't know what the government is talking about.

Marriages should be open to anyone who wnats to get married. Yea, i don't understand this argument.

Say what?  Not that any of these arguments make much sense, this one is particularly nonsensical.

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't really see how it's relevant to the question of gay marriage.  I'm married, and nobody is subsidizing me.  My tax burden tells me that the government is trying to incent me NOT to get married.  I think it's save to say that many gay couples would hurt themselves financially if they were allowed to marry.  For more on this discussion, see the thread at the bottom of this page.

Marriage and the family is the foundation of all healthy societies. This is the irrefutable IRON VERDICT OF HISTORY. I defy anyone to show me differently with credible proof.

I'm going to behave because I pay that marital tax penalty, some years through the nose.  Subsidizes?  There are subsidies?  I'm getting pretty sick of the term "sanctity of marriage", too.  My stance has nothing to do with sanctity or subsidy.  Gay marriage is a legal misnomer like a men's room for women.  It's a perversion.  Marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman.  Period.  It's not that tough to get your mind around it.  How could it then be stretched or altered to include two men, or two women.  It doesn't work like that.  And, if it does, and it's a malleable legal term, why stop at two people?  Why stop at people?  If we're ready to change it, let's throw the term out altogether.  They're no longer married .  .  . they're just THEM.  There, now doesn't everyone feel better?  Is Autzen looking upset?

I think the word "subsidize" is an unfortunate choice of terms in this case.

I personally believe that "marriage" is the province of religious bodies and as such the government has no compelling interest in it. At least it shouldn't have.

Since marriage is also a legal contract, however, the government does indeed have the right - even the obligation - to set standards. Those standards should apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation.

Why is it that people opposed to gay unions have no problem with the government being in the business of granting divorces? Isn't divorce the single greatest threat to the "sanctity" of marriage?

Excellent point!

The government subsidizing marriage is the open door that allows people to object to homosexual marriage. In other words, when society underwrites marriages then society gets to decide which marriages it underwrites and which ones it does not. This results in an open public policy debate rather than a black & white issue. As traditional marriage has faded in contemporary society for the purpose of encouraging and raising children, why do we continue to subsidize the institution financially? As one who is presently single, this is the root of my objection to homosexual marriage. While I don't care from a moral standpoint, I do have an interest in even more of the public financial burden being shifted in my direction. As I've probably stated elsewhere, the problem as I see it is that gay marriage advocates aren't really trying to eliminate a preferred class but rather are simply trying to get included in the preferred class; however, the real issue is whether that class should be so preferred.