The problem for supporters of gay marriage is that the assertion that this is an issue of civil rights conflicts with the similar claim of gay-marriage opponents. Those opposed to gay marriage feel that they have a civil right not to have the traditional concept of marriage radically redefined (especially by an unelected judiciary) for purposes of political correctness, or to make a social statement. To them, declaring homosexual relationships to be legally indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships is a tremendous civil rights violation. (To those of faith who oppose gay marriage, this sense of injustice is even more pronounced; in their view, to declare that there is no legal distinction between gay and straight relationships is to essentially declare those who feel there is such a distinction to be second-class citizens.)
Further, whatever people do behind closed doors and with whom or what, is not a genetic predisposition. There is no gene for people who are sexually attracted to dolphins. The preference sadomasichism is not immutable. One can not come out of the sex toy store on Newbury street, and mosey on up to the State House claiming their rights to insurance benefits are being violated based upon their preference to use sex toys.
Sexual preferences are choices. There are no chromosomes involved in sexual attraction and subsequent choices based upon intimate desires.
Once you open the venue to civil rights based upon the choices people make in the bedroom, that litmus test can't be denied to others.
While the lady who married the dolphin is entitled to the same civil rights we are all entitled to - of course she should not be discriminated against in a workplace, etc., is that enough? Why wouldn't she now be able to demand her fish husband's vet bills be covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield as a civil right, if this is the litmus test?
She has equal right to claim that people who marry animals are a race of people now that decisions based upon attractions and sexual desires are to be classified as a "race" of people.
Sadomasichists are making legally protected choices if their acts are consensual - therefore, by definition, they are a "race" of people, too, correct? Also entitled to whatever people who make same sex choices are legally entitled to? Whey should they be denied?
Why should wifeswappers be discriminated against? Wifeswappers are entitled to housing, food, clothing, jobs. Nobody should be fired for wifeswapping. There should be a Constitutional Convention to demand civil rights for wifeswappers.