Do They Really Care About the Sanctity of Marriage?

While I'm one of those who believes that gay marriages shouldn't be recognized or sanctioned by the state, I don't buy into the rationale that some of the people on my side of this issue use as justification for such a restriction. My reason for opposing gay marriage has to do with not wanting the state to validate any unnatural union such as two men, two women, a brother and a sister, a father and a daughter, a man and two women, a woman and two men, a man and a little boy, a woman and a little girl, a man and dog, a woman and a horse, and so on. However, others will claim that gay marriages should be forbidden in order protect the "sanctity of marriage." However, that claim rings hollow to me.

Here's the problem: If they were truly concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage, there would several other things they would be pushing for as well.  First, they would be in favor of denying a marriage license to anyone who has had three divorces. Second, they would want to ban quickie, Las Vegas-style weddings in favor of requiring a uniform waiting period of at least a month. Third, they would favor requiring a test to determine whether two people were actually in love before allowing them to marry. Hey, you have to take a test to get a driver's license; why not a test to get a marriage license? After all, isn't marriage more sacrosanct than driving? However, you won't find the folks who talk about the sanctity of marriage touting any of these regulations. Hypocrisy abounds!