It is, for lack of a better description, a one-sided debate, and I get the final word.

In late February I wrote an off the cuff article giving my opinion on the debate surrounding gay marriage and my feelings about the idea of amending the Constitution as a method of preventing such marriages.

Since I posted that article, the debate has raged on in the press, political stumping grounds and court of public opinion.  I have seen polls on the web slanted both for and against the idea.  I have seen articles and news reports both for and against the idea.  I have heard political activists and politicos arguing both for and against the idea.

Despite all of the spin and debate and name calling and pandering, I still have yet to hear a legitimate argument against gay marriage.  There are those who try to make it sound like a non-religious reason, but they fail miserably.  And all of this leads me back to my original question — can someone provide "a valid, cogent and consistent argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on either a religion that not all of us actually believe in or on sheer bigotry"?

My original article on the topic generated a good deal of conversation behind the scenes.  I received many emails both for and against.  I also had many phone and in-person conversations regarding the topic with my friends and acquaintances.

Throughout the entire discussion/debate, I have discovered that the perspective for or against gay marriage is not predictably split along lines of sexual orientation.  Neither is it arguable that "for" means Democrat/liberal and "against" means Republican/conservative.  Surprisingly I have found that these are only some of the factors which determine which sides of the argument people gravitate toward.

But most surprising of all is the level of unfamiliarity both sides have with regards to all possible courses for debate.

When I said that Jenny and I "love to debate and have on many occasions taken positions opposite our own just to enjoy a vocal and intelligent deliberation," I was speaking literally.  Just as Derek and I do, Jenny and I enjoy a debate and will readily play devil's advocate just to challenge the resolve, conviction, preparedness and knowledge of the other.

It was in this spirit that I quickly found myself embroiled in three separate email debates regarding gay marriage.  I was for in two and against in the remaining conversation.

Although those conversations are not fodder for my site, it's the spirit of the thing that matters.

And the spirit of those debates, at least on my part, was to engage myself in the quest to fully understand the issue from as many perspectives as I could, to better understand the topic rather than just my point of view.

So I now return to a topic which I so flippantly addressed with my initial response.  This time, however, I am offering my peremptory expression of thought on the gay marriage debate.

Do not expect another wan deliberation.

I will approach the question from various angles.  From historical references to my own final thoughts, expect a pensive discussion intended to transcribe my opinion to this "diary" of mine (as it's become of late).

But expect to see both analytical and emotional compositions recorded here.  Although I have given this much thought, it is still a subject near and dear to me and about which I cannot help but be at least somewhat emotional.

Verbosity aside, I hope you'll keep up with me through this little venture.  As I said, it is, for lack of a better description, a one-sided debate, and I get the final word.