People Who Are Against Gay Marriage Aren't Thinking Things Through.

[jasonwill2]

When they introduced chocolate ice cream, vanilla didn't disappear as an available flavor.

And as well, Vanilla is still the most popular and isn't going anywhere, nor is it threatened. Did you know all the exotic flavors are what bring customers in, and that everyone after trying them, usually go with Vanilla anyways? There's some metaphor in there but I'm too tired to try and explain it.

It's not just their fault though. There's an elaborate game played by both sides in the media and outside of it that largely distracts from the actual question of gay marriage. The religious person will usually oppose gay marriage saying something along the lines of "Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "I am against gay marriage because the Bible is against homosexuality."

In almost all situations where I have had the fortunate pleasure of seeing an argument/debate between the two sides, the pro-gay marriage side almost always responds to that claim with an argument against religion or the Bible.

Not saying it happens in all cases, but the usual response I have seen to anti-gay marriage rhetoric is a debate about the religion behind why those people aren't thinking it through (just look at the threads on this forum about it--this thread even).

The fact is that it has nothing to do with religion. When a religious person says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "I am against gay marriage because of the Bible" the appropriate response is not to attack the Bible or Christianity (thereby losing any chance of winning the debate), but to simply respond with "What does that have to do with legal equality?"

Most people think of marriage in terms of religion, and the pro-gay marriage side has played into the silly game of it being a religious debate. The truth is that it isn't a debate. It's as simple as some people have special rights and others are denied those same rights based on nothing more than who they've chosen to obtain those rights with.

I've never met a religious person who was opposed to legal equality when they thought of the issue as one of legal equality and not one of religion. Those of us who are for gay marriage have to bring the argument to that place, where its about the legal issues, and not fall into the my-religion-says-this-well-your-religion-is-false game.


It's why arguments like the one quoted below don't work. Because then it becomes an attack on religion in the eyes of the religionist. Whether or not that's an accurate perception, it is usually how something like that is seen.

I've tried telling people that before, that it only makes sense to ban gay marriage of you believe in theocracy, but I've only recently realized that as a solid argument and haven't gotten to try it out too much yet.

Typically, the response I've been given is that America has been founded on Christian values, that we've always legislated morality, and that the people need to protect these values that made this country so great.

These kinds of things make me angry, as it's not even true to the history, we were not a "Christian" nation unless you really want to dilute it. The typical American traits and values today are not consistent with Christianity in many, many areas.

 

[TheKnight]

It's true that they dig their heels in, but it is law.

I'm not saying it is anything other than law. The fact is that they don't see it that way. And no ground will be won if we keep pretending that they should just see it the way we do.

Typically, the response I've been given is that America has been founded on Christian values, that we've always legislated morality, and that the people need to protect these values that made this country so great.

Really? I can't say I've ever heard that one before. There are easy counterexamples, the widespread acceptance of fornication, the divorce rate, etc.

 

[Plato]

I've tried to think the issue through and I keep coming back to a really big problem with the way gay marriage is being pushed by advocates. That is.........
Marriage is and has always been a religious/ personal ceremony not a government one. Various religious denominations in the US are willing and do perform gay marriages since the 1970's, the Anglicans being one of many today.
So it seems to me advocates are not seeking a religious/ personal life experience with their partner but instead 'an official government/ social endorsement and stamp of approval' of their marriage arrangments, something much of the society is not willing to give. It's not really fair is it? To 'force' an endorsement and approval of your lifestyle from others....and if it is forced, what real good is it?
But, the marriage advocates then say....we want our marriages to be 'legal'. But a government marriage license isn't to make your marriage 'legal'....it's to tax it! If a religious official performs your marriage it 'is' legal and binding It may be considered a common law marriage or a joint partnership in a court but that doesn't make it 'illegal'.
Next they come to the benefits....we want the same tax deduction, insurance rights, hospital, property rights as other marrieds. In this I agree with them, as did even right wingers like George Bush II and the US courts (so far). The tax law can be easily changed, insurance forms have a space for benefiary/ significant other, people have 'living wills' to designate who should decide for them in hospitals, people living together and sharing property have the same property rights as divorcing couples as to property. We already have all these things (and needed adjustments can be made).
So, I come back to....we have religious ceremonies and top denominations who marry gays....
we have binding agreements between the couple...
we have no discrimination and equal treatment by the law already in jobs, housing, services, property, hospital decisions.
we have offered equal treatment in tax law, insurance law.....
So...it all seems to come down to a special 'endorsement, stamp of approval of gay marriage from a government and public, that A.) Doesn't generally give such endorsements, and B.) Isn't ready to do it yet.
Thoughts?
PS Didn't have time to spell check.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've tried to think the issue through and I keep coming back to a really big problem with the way gay marriage is being pushed by advocates. That is.........
Marriage is and has always been a religious/ personal ceremony not a government one. Various religious denominations in the US are willing and do perform gay marriages since the 1970's, the Anglicans being one of many today.
So it seems to me advocates are not seeking a religious/ personal life experience with their partner but instead 'an official government/ social endorsement and stamp of approval' of their marriage arrangments, something much of the society is not willing to give. It's not really fair is it? To 'force' an endorsement and approval of your lifestyle from others....and if it is forced, what real good is it?
But, the marriage advocates then say....we want our marriages to be 'legal'. But a government marriage license isn't to make your marriage 'legal'....it's to tax it! If a religious official performs your marriage it 'is' legal and binding It may be considered a common law marriage or a joint partnership in a court but that doesn't make it 'illegal'.
Next they come to the benefits....we want the same tax deduction, insurance rights, hospital, property rights as other marrieds. In this I agree with them, as did even right wingers like George Bush II and the US courts (so far). The tax law can be easily changed, insurance forms have a space for benefiary/ significant other, people have 'living wills' to designate who should decide for them in hospitals, people living together and sharing property have the same property rights as divorcing couples as to property. We already have all these things (and needed adjustments can be made).
So, I come back to....we have religious ceremonies and top denominations who marry gays....
we have binding agreements between the couple...
we have no discrimination and equal treatment by the law already in jobs, housing, services, property, hospital decisions.
we have offered equal treatment in tax law, insurance law.....
So...it all seems to come down to a special 'endorsement, stamp of approval of gay marriage from a government and public, that A.) Doesn't generally give such endorsements, and B.) Isn't ready to do it yet.
Thoughts?
PS Didn't have time to spell check.

This is so full of fallacies, I don't even know where to begin. :sad:

 

[Jainarayan]

This is so full of fallacies, I don't even know where to begin. :sad:

Don't even try. You'd be re-inventing the wheel. Those fallacies have been debunked time and time and time... again. And like mold and mildew, they keep coming back no matter what you do to get rid of them.

 

[jasonwill2]

Don't even try. You'd be re-inventing the wheel. Those fallacies have been debunked time and time and time... again. And like mold and mildew, they keep coming back no matter what you do to get rid of them.

But this person has expressed it in a way that may indicate that they are using reasonings and not faith for this opinion. Meaning if we can show those to be fallacies... they might change their mind. Because once you get rid of those misunderstandings and fallacies then nothing is stopping them from accepting it. ALso I think they were saying for civil unions instead of marriage should be allowed.

 

[Awoon]

I still don't see why some people think all of society should be forced to live by what their religion teaches. If you think that same-sex marriage goes against "God's definition of marriage", fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

But what does that have to do with someone else marrying the person they love?

Xenophobia seems to be the ruler of the world. Love doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've tried to think the issue through and I keep coming back to a really big problem with the way gay marriage is being pushed by advocates. That is.........
Marriage is and has always been a religious/ personal ceremony not a government one. Various religious denominations in the US are willing and do perform gay marriages since the 1970's, the Anglicans being one of many today.
So it seems to me advocates are not seeking a religious/ personal life experience with their partner but instead 'an official government/ social endorsement and stamp of approval' of their marriage arrangments, something much of the society is not willing to give. It's not really fair is it? To 'force' an endorsement and approval of your lifestyle from others....and if it is forced, what real good is it?
But, the marriage advocates then say....we want our marriages to be 'legal'. But a government marriage license isn't to make your marriage 'legal'....it's to tax it! If a religious official performs your marriage it 'is' legal and binding It may be considered a common law marriage or a joint partnership in a court but that doesn't make it 'illegal'.
Next they come to the benefits....we want the same tax deduction, insurance rights, hospital, property rights as other marrieds. In this I agree with them, as did even right wingers like George Bush II and the US courts (so far). The tax law can be easily changed, insurance forms have a space for benefiary/ significant other, people have 'living wills' to designate who should decide for them in hospitals, people living together and sharing property have the same property rights as divorcing couples as to property. We already have all these things (and needed adjustments can be made).
So, I come back to....we have religious ceremonies and top denominations who marry gays....
we have binding agreements between the couple...
we have no discrimination and equal treatment by the law already in jobs, housing, services, property, hospital decisions.
we have offered equal treatment in tax law, insurance law.....
So...it all seems to come down to a special 'endorsement, stamp of approval of gay marriage from a government and public, that A.) Doesn't generally give such endorsements, and B.) Isn't ready to do it yet.
Thoughts?
PS Didn't have time to spell check.

In my state, and in many others, it doesn't matter what your church says because gay marriage is illegal under state law, which means you can have a ceremony and that is all it is. No benefits, no next-of-kin, no solid inheritance plans, no tax deductions, nothing. You can't even legally check "married" in a box that asks because legally you are not married and the person you call your spouse has no legal grounds to stand on should an emergency happen. Not too mention there are many politicians and advocates that want zero benefits for gay couples. Not even the civil-unions.
Also, many states do not recognize common-law marriages.
And technically marriage is a social announcement that two people have joined hands, tied the knot, or whatever. It is more commonly nothing more than a form of social contract to secure inheritance, alliances, or other such social benefits. You will find marriage for love to be uncommon, and many instances unheard of, when you examine cultures throughout the globe and throughout time.

 

[Jainarayan]

But this person has expressed it in a way that may indicate that they are using reason and not faith for this opinion. Meaning if we can show those to be fallacies... they might change their mind.

This is all entirely false; there is no logic or reasoning:

we have binding agreements between the couple...
we have no discrimination and equal treatment by the law already in jobs, housing, services, property, hospital decisions.
we have offered equal treatment in tax law, insurance law.....

Agreements do not have to be honored or upheld by any state agency or medical facility. Wills can be challenged by the family of the deceased partner. Auto and homeowner insurance is not necessarily recognized between domestic partners. There is covert discrimination in hiring, firing, renting and evicting. There are over 1,100 legal benefits, rights and privileges conferred by a marriage license. So the above mentioned claims are fallacies.

 

[TheKnight]

I've tried to think the issue through and I keep coming back to a really big problem with the way gay marriage is being pushed by advocates. That is.........
Marriage is and has always been a religious/ personal ceremony not a government one. Various religious denominations in the US are willing and do perform gay marriages since the 1970's, the Anglicans being one of many today.
So it seems to me advocates are not seeking a religious/ personal life experience with their partner but instead 'an official government/ social endorsement and stamp of approval' of their marriage arrangments, something much of the society is not willing to give. It's not really fair is it? To 'force' an endorsement and approval of your lifestyle from others....and if it is forced, what real good is it?
But, the marriage advocates then say....we want our marriages to be 'legal'. But a government marriage license isn't to make your marriage 'legal'....it's to tax it! If a religious official performs your marriage it 'is' legal and binding It may be considered a common law marriage or a joint partnership in a court but that doesn't make it 'illegal'.
Next they come to the benefits....we want the same tax deduction, insurance rights, hospital, property rights as other marrieds. In this I agree with them, as did even right wingers like George Bush II and the US courts (so far). The tax law can be easily changed, insurance forms have a space for benefiary/ significant other, people have 'living wills' to designate who should decide for them in hospitals, people living together and sharing property have the same property rights as divorcing couples as to property. We already have all these things (and needed adjustments can be made).
So, I come back to....we have religious ceremonies and top denominations who marry gays....
we have binding agreements between the couple...
we have no discrimination and equal treatment by the law already in jobs, housing, services, property, hospital decisions.
we have offered equal treatment in tax law, insurance law.....
So...it all seems to come down to a special 'endorsement, stamp of approval of gay marriage from a government and public, that A.) Doesn't generally give such endorsements, and B.) Isn't ready to do it yet.
Thoughts?
PS Didn't have time to spell check.

You must not be married because clearly you're not aware of the various legal benefits that aren't available to gays.

But let's say you're right, that a gay couple could easily get the same benefits via other means. Is it not discrimination to make the process that much more difficult (IE making them wade through the legal system) to get it all accomplished when the only reason it is more difficult is because they're of the same gender?

The government has stamped its seal of approval on straight marriage and has unequally given that relationship special legal status. On what legitimate grounds can anyone justify giving a married man and woman that benefit when it doesn't seem that there's any logical reason too?

Those who are for gay marriage seek to create equality for gays, and some of us seek that kind of equality for any relationship. There is no reason to allow a man and a woman to file taxes jointly, but if the government is going to allow it, then any two people should be allowed to do it regardless of why they've chosen to.

 

[Tarheeler]

Xenophobia seems to be the ruler of the world. Love doesn't matter anymore.

What does the irrational fear of strangers or foreigners have to do with same-sex marriage?

 

[sojourner]

Typically, the response I've been given is that America has been founded on Christian values, that we've always legislated morality, and that the people need to protect these values that made this country so great.

Oh, you mean things like diddling their kids, beating their wives, and squashing the equal rights of people who are different from them?

 

[jasonwill2]

This is all entirely false; there is no logic or reasoning:

not what i meant, but whatever. i just meant that if you erase those false 'reasons' as in what i meant, you might convince them otherwise.

 

[Jainarayan]

not what i meant, but whatever. i just meant that if you erase those false 'reasons' as in what i meant, you might convince them otherwise.

I was responding to the "make contracts", "make wills", "make powers-of attorney" line of thinking that many against gay (civil) marriage use, not yours.

 

[Alceste]

I've tried to think the issue through and I keep coming back to a really big problem with the way gay marriage is being pushed by advocates. That is.........
Marriage is and has always been a religious/ personal ceremony not a government one.

Marriage license applications in the US date back to the 17th century. They have been required since 1639 in Massechusetts, and the requirement gradually spread through the entire country. You can not get married in the US without a license issued by the government and in many cases you can not receive marriage benefits (income sharing, for example, or automatic inheritance) unless you are legally married.

The nature of the ceremony (if any) is completely inconsequential. There's no need for it to be religious at all. Many people just take a pair of witnesses to city hall and dispense with ceremony altogether. What makes a marriage legal is the government's acknowledgment of the contract.

Various religious denominations in the US are willing and do perform gay marriages since the 1970's, the Anglicans being one of many today.
So it seems to me advocates are not seeking a religious/ personal life experience with their partner but instead 'an official government/ social endorsement and stamp of approval' of their marriage arrangments, something much of the society is not willing to give. It's not really fair is it? To 'force' an endorsement and approval of your lifestyle from others....and if it is forced, what real good is it?

Polls in 2012

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.[10]


A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[11]


A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[12][13]


A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[15]



A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[16]


An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[17]


A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18]



A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[19]


A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[20]

(From wikipedia)

So, tell me again what isn't fair?

But, the marriage advocates then say....we want our marriages to be 'legal'. But a government marriage license isn't to make your marriage 'legal'....it's to tax it! If a religious official performs your marriage it 'is' legal and binding It may be considered a common law marriage or a joint partnership in a court but that doesn't make it 'illegal'.

Everybody gets taxed. Married or not. Governments issue marriage licenses for the same reason they issue birth certificates, death certificates, work permits, immigration papers, driving licenses, building permits, etc. It's their job to try to keep track of what people are doing and try to apply some uniform standard to everyone.

BTW, legal literally means recognized by the courts. I can't see how you can get around that issue.

Next they come to the benefits....we want the same tax deduction, insurance rights, hospital, property rights as other marrieds. In this I agree with them, as did even right wingers like George Bush II and the US courts (so far). The tax law can be easily changed, insurance forms have a space for benefiary/ significant other, people have 'living wills' to designate who should decide for them in hospitals, people living together and sharing property have the same property rights as divorcing couples as to property. We already have all these things (and needed adjustments can be made).
So, I come back to....we have religious ceremonies and top denominations who marry gays....

Would you agree that the simplest adjustment lawmakers could implement to solve all these problems would be to make would be to end gender-based marriage discrimination?

Even if it were true (which it isn't) that ALL marriage benefits opposite sex couples enjoy can be obtained by other means by homosexuals, why should they be required to put in hundreds of hours of legal research and paperwork to obtain those rights when heterosexuals can obtain them all in a few minutes just by visiting a justice of the peace? Would you agree that maintaining an onerous burden of legal obligation for homosexuals to arrange their partnerships in a way that is straightforward and simple for heterosexuals is inherently discriminatory?

we have binding agreements between the couple...
we have no discrimination and equal treatment by the law already in jobs, housing, services, property, hospital decisions.
we have offered equal treatment in tax law, insurance law.....
So...it all seems to come down to a special 'endorsement, stamp of approval of gay marriage from a government and public, that A.) Doesn't generally give such endorsements, and B.) Isn't ready to do it yet.
Thoughts?

My thoughts are that if you make a sincere effort to ensure that your factual assertions are true before formulating your conclusions (google is your friend), the quality of your opinions will be greatly improved. There's nothing wrong with your ability to reason. If you apply this talent a little more carefully in the future, your posts will attract more interesting and respectful feedback than they have in this thread.

 

[George-ananda]

This is a paraphrase of something I posted as a reply on Facebook. It was about the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. I realize that most of these people who are against gay marriage aren't really thinking their belief thoroughly or completely through. I really don't believe that most of those are thinking "I am against gay marriage because I hate gays". They are saying "I want to keep marriage traditional". And by not thinking it through, they don't realize that they are not separating what they want from the rights of other people.
They don't realize about legal issues of people together for a lifetime and not being able to make decisions about their significant other- not being able to see the person if they person is incapacitated, not being able to make any decisions regarding a funeral if their S. O. has died, and all that.
If we all just think these things through, then maybe we can stop all this insanity and all these battles.

Any other thoughts?

I wish that all those who are against gay marriage would really think it through. Try to separate what you want from what people are truly asking for. Start thinking about others.

I've had this thought. Why can't gays/lesbians have private marriage ceremonies with no legal effect as they do now.
　
Here's some reasons for that idea:

If they are able to file a joint income tax returns isn't that going to mean a great loss of revenue to the government that will have to be made up some way
.
Could two same-sex people legally marry (although not in a commited relationship) strictly for legal and financial advantages. Including things like health insurance through one of the spouse's employers (which will be costly to employers).

Regarding the advantages you mention (like funerals, incapacitations); couldn't these be specified in wills and other legal documents.

Are our courts going to handle more divorces, guardian situations, legal disputes, etc. Who'll pay for this.

I look at the legal and financial advantages of traditional marriage as helping families with the financial burden of children produced by that union. (yes, I'm aware that not all marriages produce children - the system can't be perfect).
　
Have you thought about these things. I'm open to hearing how my thinking is wrong. I'm definitely not a homophobe or hater. I think sexual orientation is in-born in some way we don't fully understand. Your OP seems to say opposition to same-sex marriage is just for moral reasons and for support of traditional marriage.

 

[Alceste]

I've had this thought. Why can't gays/lesbians have private marriage ceremonies with no legal effect as they do now.
　
Here's some reasons for that idea:

If they are able to file a joint income tax returns isn't that going to mean a great loss of revenue to the government that will have to be made up some way
.
Could two same-sex people legally marry (although not in a commited relationship) strictly for legal and financial advantages. Including things like health insurance through one of the spouse's employers (which will be costly to employers).

Regarding the advantages you mention (like funerals, incapacitations); couldn't these be specified in wills and other legal documents.

Are our courts going to handle more divorces, guardian situations, legal disputes, etc. Who'll pay for this.

I look at the legal and financial advantages of traditional marriage as helping families with the financial burden of children produced by that union. (yes, I'm aware that not all marriages produce children - the system can't be perfect).
　
Have you thought about these things. I'm open to hearing how my thinking is wrong. I'm definitely not a homophobe or hater. I think sexual orientation is in-born in some way we don't fully understand. Your OP seems to say opposition to same-sex marriage is just for moral reasons and for support of traditional marriage.

As I mentioned before, EVEN IF the claim that it is possible to obtain marriage benefits by other means is true (which I don't believe it is), attempting to attain all the legal and tax benefits heterosexual couples can receive in the space of a few minutes one at a time requires hundreds of hours of research and paperwork for homosexual couples. Maintaining these two separate processes for heterosexuals and homosexuals is inherently discriminatory.

Also, as you acknowledge that many heterosexual couples can not or choose not to have children, you must also acknowledge many homosexual couples can and do choose to have or adopt children. This argument only supports the notion that ALL parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, should all have equal rights and benefits, for the good of their children. It can not be used to support the notion of granting legal benefits to heterosexuals that homosexuals can not enjoy.

 

[ChristineES]

I've had this thought. Why can't gays/lesbians have private marriage ceremonies with no legal effect as they do now.
　
Here's some reasons for that idea:

If they are able to file a joint income tax returns isn't that going to mean a great loss of revenue to the government that will have to be made up some way
.
Could two same-sex people legally marry (although not in a commited relationship) strictly for legal and financial advantages. Including things like health insurance through one of the spouse's employers (which will be costly to employers).

Regarding the advantages you mention (like funerals, incapacitations); couldn't these be specified in wills and other legal documents.

Are our courts going to handle more divorces, guardian situations, legal disputes, etc. Who'll pay for this.

I look at the legal and financial advantages of traditional marriage as helping families with the financial burden of children produced by that union. (yes, I'm aware that not all marriages produce children - the system can't be perfect).
　
Have you thought about these things. I'm open to hearing how my thinking is wrong. I'm definitely not a homophobe or hater. I think sexual orientation is in-born in some way we don't fully understand. Your OP seems to say opposition to same-sex marriage is just for moral reasons and for support of traditional marriage.

But even people who are in a heterosexual marriages do those things and get married only for the advantages. And about wills, family members have been known to challenge the will, as well.

 

[fantome profane]

I've had this thought. Why can't gays/lesbians have private marriage ceremonies with no legal effect as they do now.
　
Here's some reasons for that idea:

If they are able to file a joint income tax returns isn't that going to mean a great loss of revenue to the government that will have to be made up some way
.
Could two same-sex people legally marry (although not in a commited relationship) strictly for legal and financial advantages. Including things like health insurance through one of the spouse's employers (which will be costly to employers).

Regarding the advantages you mention (like funerals, incapacitations); couldn't these be specified in wills and other legal documents.

Are our courts going to handle more divorces, guardian situations, legal disputes, etc. Who'll pay for this.

I look at the legal and financial advantages of traditional marriage as helping families with the financial burden of children produced by that union. (yes, I'm aware that not all marriages produce children - the system can't be perfect).
　
Have you thought about these things. I'm open to hearing how my thinking is wrong. I'm definitely not a homophobe or hater. I think sexual orientation is in-born in some way we don't fully understand. Your OP seems to say opposition to same-sex marriage is just for moral reasons and for support of traditional marriage.

Homosexuals are really only a small minority of the overall population, and those who wish to get married are only a portion of that minority. Same sex marriage will not result in a huge increase of divorces. If you really wanted to keep these kind of court costs in check it would be more effective if we just passed a law saying left-handed people could not marry. But would that be fair?

We are talking about a series matter of equality and basic civil rights. Compared to that you are talking about what is is relative terms a very small amount of money.

 

[Alceste]

Homosexuals are really only a small minority of the overall population, and those who wish to get married are only a portion of that minority. Same sex marriage will not result in a huge increase of divorces. If you really wanted to keep these kind of court costs in check it would be more effective if we just passed a law saying left-handed people could not marry. But would that be fair?

We are talking about a series matter of equality and basic civil rights. Compared to that you are talking about what is is relative terms a very small amount of money.

Also, as far as I know, there are no "public defenders" representing aspiring divorcees. When a couple wants to dissolve their contract through the court system, they pay the costs.