Another thing: why, if gays marrying would destroy the "sanctity of marriage," is there not a similar uproar about, say, banning quickie marriages and imposing penalties for adultery? I know I'm not alone in saying that Britney Spears' "marriage," for example, made a mockery of the institution much more than two men or two women who have loved each other for a long time deciding to spend the rest of their lives together.
To speak in the terms of analytic philosophy: is "sanctity" either a necessary or a sufficient condition for marriage *as our society has come to understand it*?
For starters, we'd need to define "sanctity." Let's say that for a marriage to possess "sanctity," it would have to entail fidelity on the part of both partners, a relationsip entered into freely and without coercion, a sincere intent to continue this relationship in the future, and a desire for the help and love of God and/or the community to help sustain the relationship. As far as I can remember, being as I've attended a number of Catholic weddings (more Catholic weddings than any other, as I have a sort of standing engagement at a Catholic church as a wedding cantor and soloist for couples who don't provide their own), this is patterned after the questions the priest asks a couple just before he marries them.
So, basically, sanctity would involve: fidelity, a relationship chosen freely by both partners, a sincere intent to continue the relationship (presumably until death), and the desire for the love and help of God and/or the community.
The first question: is sanctity *necessary*? Let us use our friend Britney as an example. Britney and her fellow Jason were married in accordance with the law of the state of Nevada (the only state, need I remind you, which requires no waiting period for marriage licenses). And let us be charitable. It is indeed possible, indeed even likely, that from the time Britney and Jason began their relationship, they were faithful to each other. Let us assume that the fidelity condition holds. Next, there is no evidence that either Britney or Jason was coerced into the relationship. The second condition of freedom also holds. The third condition, the intent to continue the relationship, seems a bit murky. Being as the marriage was annulled less than three days later, we can assume that there was not a serious intent to continue the relationship. The intent to continue condition, then, does not hold. The fourth condition, the desire for the love and support of God and/or the community, may or may not hold. We do not know if Britney and Jason prayed, for example, before their wedding. We do not know if they had friends or family present. So the fourth condition may or may not hold. But the third condition clearly does not. Thus the "sanctity" of Britney and Jason's marriage may certainly be called into question. Yet they were married in full accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada. Thus we may conclude that "sanctity" is not a necessary condition of legal marriages. (This is to say nothing of church marriages, where individual faiths and churches are free to set their own guidelines for the conditions under which weddings may take place A Catholic priest, for example, certainly would not have married Britney and Jason without lengthy premarital counseling, sometimes called "pre-Cana" classes.)
Next: is sanctity a *sufficient* condition for marriage? That is, if a relationship exhibits fidelity, a freely chosen state for both partners, the desire to continue the relationship in the future, and the desire for the love and help of God and/or the community in sustaining the relationship, is it, then, a marriage? One might be inclined to say yes. But this is also untrue.
Consider, for example, persons who enter the religious life. A Catholic priest (sorry for all the Catholic examples, but my background is predominantly Catholic) is said to be "married" to the Church. He may be faithful to that relationship. He may not have been coerced to become a priest, and the Church may not have been coerced to accept him as a priest; that is, he freely chose to become a priest (the issue of vocation aside--he could have chosen to ignore the voaction), and the Church freely chose to ordain him as such. He may wish to remain a priest for the rest of his life. And when a priest is ordained, the people are beseeched to support him in his ministry, and the Holy Spirit is invoked to help him as well. Yet, for legal purposes, this man is not called "married." He files his taxes, say, as a single person. No matter how wonderful his relationship with the Church might be, the law regards Father Whoever as a single person because he has not entered into a relationship recognized by the law. Thus those four conditions of "sanctity" do not hold.
THUS, "sanctity" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for LEGAL marriage. Again, churches/faiths are free to make their own choices about unions they prefer to recognize.
One possible objection to my argument: under the definition of "sanctity," one might also add the intention (and indeed innate biological ability, which only a heterosexual couple would have) to begin and sustain a family. Indeed, in a Catholic wedding, this is a question the priest asks ("Will you accept children gratefully as a gift from God?" I believe is the correct wording). However, I left this condition out due to the fact that the marriages of infertile, childless couples are still recognized as legitimate even in the Catholic tradition (even if those of couples who are voluntarily childless might be questioned). Thus the condition of children cannot be applied.
I realize that there remain arguments for not compelling churches to recognize gay marriages. I agree that each church and faith tradition is free to bless and recognize only the unions they choose. But legally, there have STILL been NO compelling arguments against allowing gays to marry. And I think I've done a decent job of deconstructing the philosophical argument. But like any good philosopher, I welcome debate.
. 
