  Kimber, I don't know what problems anyone but the Catholic church would have with the morning after pill. I single out the Catholics because they are the only group I know of that has discouraged the use of birth control- which is all the morning after pill is. It has the same chemical that a birth control pill does, and the same effect, just a double the dose of a weekly or monthly pill that interferes with the release, or implantation of an egg after unprotected sex.
It DOES NOT abort a pregnancy which is a common misconception. The real problem with the morning after pill is that it is not an over-the-counter medication. It is not marketed as a replacement for a condom or other contraceptive, but rather a substance that can be taken in an emergency. Plain and simple, if the morning after pill becomes more easily accessable, abortion rates decrease.
Now on to the debate we had friday on gay marriage... why arguments against gay marriage (GM) don't work (many arguments against gay marriage overlap and I'm going to refute all that I can recall, but possibly not in the most organizationally logical, but bear with me); Civil Unions: The fourteenth ammendment declares any law abridging rights illegal and Brown vs. Board (fifty years ago last week) declared separate unequal. Allowing gays to marry does not detract at all from heterosexual marriages, I'll get to that later.
Religion: Besides the obvious Church and State separation, I'd like to challenge those who claim that their only opposition to GM is because God finds it immoral. The only verses where the Bible expressly declares homosexuality sinful is in Leviticus, however, also in Leviticus there are laws forbidding mules, clothing made of more than one material, and the consumption of shellfish. Even the most pious of midwestern farmers use mules, the devoutest of New York Irish-Catholics wear spandex, and the most faithful of Southern Baptists eat Louisiana oysters. So why is the law forbidding homosexuality still relevant while so many Christians across the country would be burning pigeons, rams or bulls for atonement every day? It is unfair to God, unfair to oneself, and unfair to homosexuals to be hypocritical in ones faith. Lastly, there is no law forcing religious institutions to accept state-issued marriage certificates. I know that I will not convince many to disregard a good portion of the Old Testament, but none should argue that universally legalizing GM infringes upon their religious beliefs. Legalizing GM sets dangerous precedents. AKA, the "slippery slope" issue: This argument suggests that there is something wrong with homosexuality in the first place. That because heterosexuals can never comprehend its biological intricacies homosexuality is therefore immoral or wrong. Some would argue that legalizing GM encourages homosexuality- to that I ask what is wrong with that?
Never mind the intended rhetoric of that question, the real contention is that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time and will continue to stick around long after an ammendment to ban GM. Others would say that gays don't hold the institution of marriage is the same esteem as heteros, but I would argue that they hold it higher. Marriage is something that this group has to fight for. A rite of maturity and consecration that has been to this point forbidden to them. George W. Bush has proposed an ammendment banning GM as part of his Marriage Protection platform. I would ask the president to explain why, after two years as Governor of Texas, divorce rates in his states jumped up 6% after a steady decline over the last 25 years. Gays can create the same environment of dependence and stability that the state provides benefits for.
Those who suggest that GM promotes infidelity, insincincerity, or various other ins promotes the very KKK/neo-Nazi idea that gays are inferior, as well as the perpetuation of the hate and discrimination that results. Lastly, there is another argument that gay marriage opens the door to marriage to animals, or polygamy. Marriage, ideally, is the manifestation of a commitment made in love. Historically this has not been the case in heterosexuals when arranged marriages to expand fortunes and empires have been abused by straight royalty and peasantry as long as time remembers, and although that history has faded out, I see no reason as to why the commitment of two people in love has to be expanded to animals whom the law could successfully argue do not share the human emotion ideally involved in a marriage. As for polygamy, I see no problem with it. I have had first-hand accounts with personal friends of polygamists in Utah.
While the state doesn't recognize their marriage, the man of the house (so to speak) commits himself to each of his wives, supports his children, and the members of the family receive the benefit of an environment much healthier than that of an abusive or neglectful albeit "normal" household. My conclusion to the arguments against GM is that in many cases they are the manifestation of an instinctual reflex against homosexuality. I won't deny the fact that witnessing two males kiss does not sit well with me, but that is no reason to punish those, who for whatever reason, are physically attracted to the same sex.
If anyone wants to challenge my statements or add to my list of arguments to refute, I gladly accept the confrontation. A metric plethora of people have claimed that GM is such a frivolous issue to get so passionate about, and on the first layer, I believe they are right. But this argument is not just about GM; it's another pinnacle of the continuing struggle minorities have for equality in this America so proud of its Land of the Free. Think about it. Love Rob 
