Still sick, so I probably won't do this justice, but...
Anyone noticed the way that homophobes try to couch their opposition to gay marriage in "public safety" terms? The basic assertion is thus: "I'm not homophobic; I'm just trying to protect the institution of marriage." This is a blatant dodge, and I urge everyone engaged in debate with people who are opposed to gay marriage to ask the obvious consequential question that the media doesn't seem to ask:
"So does that mean that you think gay people are dangerous?" Because that's the conclusion. If marriage must be "protected" from gay people, gay people must be dangerous to it. That leads to the next consequential question: "How?" Exactly what do they think that the consequences will be of opening marriage to gay people? How will it affect the institution? I guarantee you, probe at the question for long enough, and they'll be forced to admit that at heart, they're just not comfortable with gay people getting married "just like them". And that's not protection. That's homophobia.
And keep one thing in mind; the people who opposed integration of the public school system said the same thing. "I'm not racist; I just want to protect the children." And the same question had to be, and was, asked then: "Protected from what?"