Homosexual Marriage Rights

The question at hand is whether homosexuals ought to be extended equal marriage rights, under federal law generally, and/or under state laws specifically. My position is that they should, and further that there are no cogent or defensible arguments to the contrary. The positive aspect of my position is as follows; our Constitutional principles demand that we extend the same marriage rights to homosexual couples as we do to heterosexual couples- prohibiting them from entering into federally recognized legal marriages to the partner of their choice (i. e. of the same sex) is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to our constitution, which states that"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " (Cornell Legal Information Institute, . http://www.law.cornell.edu...)Now, while the 14th Amendment applies to state governments, it has been read to apply to the federal government as well, as part of the 5th amendment due process guarantee; so a law such as DOMA, which "abridge the privledges. .. of citizens" by denying them the liberty to marry the person they love, is a fairly clear and blatant breach of the Constitution. But perhaps the most decisive aspect of this debate is the aspect of harm; a simple risk/reward analysis demonstrates that extending equal marriage rights to homosexuals is a win-win proposition- the only people affected by it will be affected positively, not negatively. Despite some very far-fetched claims about the "effects on the moral fabric of society", it is obvious that the only people affected in any substantial or quantifiable way by homosexual marriages would be those homosexuals who can legally wed- the rest of us, well, it doesn't affect us at all, and certainly not negatively. So in such a case, where passing a law means one group stands to gain a whole lot and everyone else stands to lose nothing, it should be an easy decision. Furthermore, it is the clear intent of our founding documents and founding fathers to limit government interference as much as possible, such as in cases where no one stands to be harmed- and this is clearly such a case. Now, the negative aspect of all this is the arguments against equal marriage rights for homosexuals; most of the ones that we actually see or hear are red herrings, and without exception very poor arguments, usually non-sequitur. This is because they are largely disingenuous; the real reason for opposing homosexual marriage rights is usually one's religious beliefs- Christianity, the most populous religion in the world and in the US, and Islam, only slightly behind, both prohibit homosexuality. Now, to admit that the reason for legislation against homosexual marriages is religious-based would be to admit that it is unconstitutional; this would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. But at bottom this is what it boils down to, and the fact that there is not a single credible secular argument against homosexual marriage rights is extremely telling on this point; if there is such an argument, lets hear it, if not, lets stick to our Constitutional principles that have served us well so far (as they say, "if the shoe fits")