I beg your pardon, Pink. This is exactly the kind of thing I meant when I mentioned earlier that "we the people" have lost our ability to hear and participate in discussion because of poor education.
If the definition of marriage is changed by law, we have no problem. But if the court simply finds that same-sex couples can't be denied marriage because it is a civil right, what special characteristic about these couples can you point to that makes them legally more entitled to the right that multiple partners? Or how about if people use a short-term marriage contract, just to qualify them for spousal benefits? Then the contract expires and, viola!, no need for divorce (credit WSJ).
You don't have a logical leg to stand on, sorry.