Because it is the only argument they can defend, although it has been suggested many times that not only is it not the only argument, but possibly the one with the least merit and therefore easiest to argue from the no side.
Why don't you try arguing that the voting populace decided this is how they want things to be and then tell me that in this case the government should DICTATE to the people how things should be; then finish up by saying that the we have a government of the people, and that the government should only DICTATE to the population when YOU find it to be necessary. :ermm:
Or perhaps you could produce some documentation that proves first of all the God does in fact exist, and secondly that he wrote universal laws detailing that not allowing gays to marry was an inherent human rights violation. Since that doesn't exist, we get to make our laws based on what the majority of people want. Unless you want to suggest for some reason that your right is greater than that of the majority, and that you won't feel the same way on another matter when the majority of people decide to legalize marijuana for example and a minority claims that it is wrong to let the majority decide that.
