@1 There's got to be a winning argument, somewhere, to counter the "morally objectionable" argument. The people who find SSM morally objectionable are, by and large, the same people who find gay people morally objectionable.

I'm not any kind of brilliant logician or anything, but why doesn't this work?: Given that gay people are morally objectionable, why would you want two of them, running around separately being gay, when you could let them legally pair up and then have half as many gay households?

Then, there's the collateral-damage argument, to also appeal to their least-worst-result decision tree, which might go something like this:

Once gay people, who are probably always going to be gay their entire lives, are allowed to live their gay lives as normally as we'll allow them, to seek compatible romantic partners and settle down, we won't have to keep reading about closeted gay men getting straight-married to unsuspecting wives, or lesbian women marrying unsuspecting husbands, and ruining other ("regular", "normal") people's lives.

As a footnote, I'd just like to add that my church (a Hicksite Quaker meeting of the Religious Society of Friends) strongly hews to our Testimony of Equality, and has been conducting marriage commitment ceremonies since long before it was legally recognized and we respectfully request other religions to honor our honestly-held and divinely-inspired moral beliefs and stop trying to interfere with our free practice of religion!

Oh, so NOW we believe in trickle down economics...

@6 Silly. Trickle-down economics is when you inject wealth at the top of the food chain in the (decidedly unproven) belief that those at the bottom will benefit from it. This is the opposite, the wealth-from-consumer-commerce model of economics, where those at the broader end of the economic pyramid purchase goods and services, spending money benefiting those in business higher up in the food chain.

@8 That's absolutely true. Here in New York, a little over a year after the law passed, nobody talks about it. The sky didn't fall, little boys aren't all wearing pink tutus, and they're not teaching bestiality and pagan sacrifice rituals in school. Haters have nothing to talk about now that it's clear that none of that happened.

On a positive note, I'll be attending my Quaker meeting's first legally-sanctioned same-sex wedding in a few weeks! The lovely couple was previously religious-married in our meeting several years ago, but they're going to repeat their declarations with a City-issued marriage license this time. (Personally, I'm miffed that the State won't retroactively recognize their original marriage, since it met all our traditional requirements and their suitable-for-framing denomination-issued certificate was signed by over 50 witnesses.)