Pros and cons for both sides

Over the past few days I have become acutely aware of a few things:

• Neither side [of the same sex marriage amendment debate] can claim higher ethics or better behavior than the other. They've both made false and misleading claims.
• The best arguments for same-sex marriage involve personal attachments, such as next-of-kin privileges, taxation benefits, etc. This avoids the religious quagmire the right is obsessed with.
• The best argument against it is that the terminology of the Hawai`i Constitution was never meant to include same-sex marriage, just as laws against drug use were never meant to exclude medical use.
• The worst argument for the amendment is on religious grounds -- that homosexual MARRIAGE is wrong. Whether a practicing homosexual is married or not makes no difference according to Scripture. Biblically, its irrelevant.
• The worst argument against the amendment is the slippery slope -- that passage would lead to the dissolution of the Native Hawaiian, Japanese, and abortion rights. For this, another referendum for another amendment to the constitution would have to be passed, and that simply isn't realistic.