Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential i

Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.