In the matter of gay marriage, opponents are absolutely correct.

Marriage is defined as between a man and woman. I do find it interesting, though, that we have a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution with Bill of Rights and three branches of government with checks and balances, and that with all these factors our founding fathers included in law making, Webster's dictionary somehow trumps all others in the gay marriage debate.

Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman -- this is fact. Gay marriage would then obviously be defined as a union between two men or two women. This will not lead to men marrying two women or any other shenanigans based on equal protection. Gays want legal protection that marriage provides. Since our laws are based on precedent, extending custody and inheritance laws from traditional to gay marriage involves no significant legal issues.

Extending these laws to a man and two women has no precedent, and since three is not equal to two, such a union would not be covered under equal protection. Anyone who is against gay marriage but for civil unions is even more ridiculous. Think how often marriage is used in a sentence. Will anyone ever ask a gay couple how long they have been civil unioned?

Finally, many people think gay marriage will ruin the institution. Heterosexuals are doing a fine job themselves, with a 50 percent divorce rate. Celebrities have even less respect for marriage. Britney Spears' recent 50-hour marriage is proof.

Therefore, to save marriage, we should let gays marry -- but not celebrities.