The legal history of marriage demonstrates what should in any case be obvious, that traveling across country and finding out that you are no longer married is an entirely different matter than working up a will or taking a state bar exam. Imagine a married couple, where one spouse is hospitalized after a car accident in another state, losing visiting rights or the right to make medical decisions, because their marriage isn't recognized in that state.

And the legal history of Slavery demonstrated what was once thought obvious, that traveling across country and finding out that you are no longer the rightful owner of your slave as property was an entirely different matter than working up a will or taking a state bar exam. Imagine a lawful slave owner in his home state divested of his rightful property by another state, losing property rights or the right to trade his slave for another because Slavery is not recognized in that state. Indeed.

The Federal Marriage Amendment did not start this war. Judicial arrogance in Vermont did that.

Defining marriage has always been a state issue. The current administration initiated the Federal...

That, not the simple desire to marry someone you love, is arrogance."
It is difficult to understand any attitude other than support or indifference to same- sex marriage on the part of heterosexuals. It is my belief that anybody secure in his heterosexuality, (whether married or not), has little objection to gay marriage, and that any heterosexual who is that threatened by gay marriage doth protest too much, perhaps.

Ultimately, gay marriage is simply the same manifestation of love and companionship as all marriage is, or is supposed to be, at any rate.

References

Kurtz, S. The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality and Adultery

National Review Online (April 30, 2003); Accessed September 19, 2007 at http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp