Despite their duty to defend the laws on the books, state attorneys general are increasingly taking an unusually supportive role in the movement to legalize gay marriage across the U.S. Some, like Herring, are refusing to defend their states' prohibitions against same-sex matrimony.
What that means is that the destruction of one man and one woman as the one and only recognized form of marriage by introducing same-sex marriage will effectively destroy marriage, period.
The same "constitutional" arguments for same-sex marriage apply to any group of any size in any combination of genders being married. In addition, there is no difference between a huge group of people in any combination of genders being married and that same group not being married.
You aren't effectively going to argue that the state would have some compelling reason to keep a marriage limited to 10,000 people who've decided to all be married to each other at the same time. Reasonably, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at two people once you use the equality argument to overturn thousands of years of marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Two same-sex people don't then have more rights than three same-sex people who want to be recognized as a married threesome. There's no logical way around it. This is why marriage was defined the way it was for the last couple of thousand years in Western civilization: logic, reason, rationality.
If they were all engage in sex with each other at the same time, which would be completely legal and constitutional if these ideas that same-sex marriage can't constitutionally be blocked, it would for all intents and purposes constitute an orgy that may as well be among unmarried people. What would be the practical difference?
Marriage is being rendered useless. It won't exist. It will be a term that applies to something that used to be.
In addition, there will be no meaningful line where a child has two biological parents.
Of course, homosexuals are looking forward to more and more artificiality in life in that they are keen to have children in vitro and the result of genetic technology such that two homosexual males will have a genetic child where both are the biological parents and no one else is.
No, ruling that it is unconstitutional that marriage is only between one man and one woman destroys marriage.
Everywhere where same-sex marriage has been made the law by the courts or legislature or voters, marriage actually no longer exists if same-sex is upheld by the US Supreme Court and the same legal reasoning (using that term more than loosely) is applied to other configurations, which it will have to be else the Court will be exceedingly hypocritical.
It's a Brave New World only worse.
You people are sleep walking into a dystopia of your own making. You say that same-sex marriage is the right side of history. I say that in the future, they will look back upon your choice as a time marking the beginning of the greatest confusion: the beginning of the end of the darkest age.
Now, all of that said, there will still be real marriages. They just won't be secular or performed by any religious body that recognizes same-sex or polygamous "marriages." They will be unions created by the God of one-man-and-one-woman-only marriages, who is the God of logic and righteousness and not of perversion and mental illness.