I'll wade into this debate, since I joined the other 50 or so posts we had on this topic. The theory on allowing gay marriage as it was proposed and discussed by the Supreme Court, was to allow civil ceremonies, not forcing any church, minister, or religious group to perform a wedding. The Law would not interfere with anyone's religious belief. It would be no different than the Catholic church refusing to marry me because I am not catholic, and have never completed any of their rites.
As far as the 'slippery slope' argument, there is no coellation between allowing gay marriage and any of the other disgusting acts. This is just the same fear-mongering historically used to argue against abolishing slavery, allowing women to vote, etc. The Human Rights Code protects people from discrimination based on certain grounds, one of which is sexual orientation, another being religion, and none of which is family worship or animal magnitism. Laws banning bestiality and incest do not contravene this Act, and allowing gay marriages would not allow those freaks to argue they are being discriminated against, since their complaints are not grounded.
Did allowing minorities and women to vote make little of an Anglo-saxon's vote? Did allowing a woman to go to medical school harm the world? Did allowing black people to sit at the front of the bus, eat in the same restaurant, drink from the same fountain or stay in the same hotel ruin society? No, but if they were allowed to do these things............
