if you take religion out of marriage and look at it purely from a legal standpoint, what do you have?

a contract.

the contract defines the relationship between three distinct entities (husband, wife, government) and requires the participation of all three entities to complete the contract and be legally binding. the marriage contract holds sway over the previously mentioned entities (husband, wife, government) and a fourth distinct entity (children).

if you look at same-sex marriage from a purely legal standpoint, it looks slightly different:

it would still be a contract.

the contract would require the participation of only two distinct entities (husband, government or wife, government… assuming you keep the same nomenclature) and would have no sway over children (since the relationship cannot produce them; adoption is a separate contract).

or you could have it be three distinct entities (party a, party b, government)

either way, a marriage contract and a same-sex marriage contract are not the same thing. the only way you can make them the same is by changing the original marriage contract. the only problem with this is that there are millions of californians who are legally bound with the state in the original contract. by changing the original contract the state is breaking the contract. as a citizen of the state of california, it is the right of every married person to have the state uphold its end of the contract.

you talk about equal rights.

the rights of every married person are being trampled, and you don’t care.

you say the gays do not have equal rights.

that is false. any gay man or woman is able to enter into the contract of marriage (husband, wife, government) as long as they are of legal age or receive permission to do so (if they are not of legal age).

the same-sex marriage contract already exists. it is called “civil union”.

What I see is that a few people want to define marriage for a whole society. I could also use alarmist language just as lostsociety chose to use. For example: If we allow marriage, in this society to be defined to be other than just between one man and one woman, it could eventually be defined as ok for a man and a child whose parents give permission to marry, or 3 or four ladies, or 2 men and 2 women, or one large group of people. Why not? It would be cheaper than forming a corporation and if these people want to join together, who has the right to stop them? We do! As a majority, we do have that right.

Regardless of this argument, the fact is, the majority of active voters spoke and they have a right to do so without persecution. I didn’t get to vote and didn’t have any influence, but I do believe that in this predominantly Christian society, we ought to be able to define marriage as between one man and woman.

I don’t have anything against some other form of civil union to protect the civil rights of those of the same gender who wish to be united, but I don’t feel that marriage and family will be strengthened by same sex marriage. I believe I have a right to express that view. My fear is that if I don’t speak up now, later, I will be vilified and prosecuted by the law under hate crimes legislation when I do express that view.

The right to petition and to congregate still stands in the constitution until that gets taken away from gays as well. Destruction of property doesn’t fit with 99.9% of the people who are opposed to this vote. Addressing the few does not correctly label the whole as KKIFE’s earlier post properly distinguishes.

But if a vote were available to remove YOUR own right to marry to be unconstitutional – what would we expect to see in the aftermath? Are these protests not to be expected? Does anyone’s history book show the act of removing civil rights from any minority group without immediate reaction and back lash? How could anyone possibly expect a docile response?

By and large the responses I’ve witnessed have been peaceful, civil and have not involved any destruction of property and I’ve been to several very large ones.

I do however want to commend you for accepting my posts. My earlier post was not made up. It was taken from the words that a “Christian” man told me just two years ago. These beliefs are not from my own head. I accept not all Christians feel the same, however, I want to know why this act to vote Yes actually made sense to them. I’ve listened to every argument. I’ve read and studied every piece of information I could get my hands on from the Yes campaign. I can refute every article, piece of evidence, and illogical conclusion that I’ve read or heard so far on the Yes side. I’ve yet to find evidence that during the few short months Gays were allowed to marry (interpreted by a largely conservative Republican Supreme Court ruling), how did this invalidate a straight couple’s marriage and family? How did it corrupt their society? How did it cause Gays and Lesbians to come crashing in their churches demanding to be married? How did it require their children be taught Homosexuality in schools that wasn’t already in place before gays were given the right to marry? Prop 8 did nothing to address these concerns aside from remove the right to civil marriage from a minority group.

We undoubtedly have differing opinions about reasons children deserve to learn about the civics in their society. I feel a child has a right to know their surroundings. They have a right to be educated about their society. They also have a right to have moral teachings from their parents and churches in this regard. But don’t children have the right to know there is a place for them in this world regardless of race, gender, religion, and sexual identity? Or would parents rather see their child commit suicide when they fail to identify themselves as heterosexuals. This is happening today and has happened countless times in the past. This does not go away. Can’t we teach morals to children regardless of what sexual orientation that may feel convicted to live? Obviously most people who are gay did not become gay because they were taught about it in schools. In fact, they were taught the opposite. Many spend years trying to convert to Heterosexuality with complete failure.

I deeply respect that you were willing to listen to another side and post it for others to read. It was my experience that most on the Yes side that I encountered, were not willing to offer the same consideration and would only listen to what their church had to say.

My comment was designed purely to clarify what had and had not been said in this post or on this blog. This post was written purely in response to the tactics used by those opposed to the passage of Proposition 8.

No one here has ever condemned a homosexual to hell nor referred to homosexuals as “angels of hell.” It is quite possible to oppose same sex marriage and not think those things.

The only evil we have decried here is the tactics of physical intimidation and property destruction that have come in the wake of the election results. Those things are evil from heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, and oh by the way, Martians.

We should vote to take away their civil unions next. Lets start that campaign immediately. Lets take away their right to hold jobs. Lets make life so miserable for them, that it will be undeniable that they are angels of Satan. Its disgusting how these gays have children and love them and pretend they are a loving family. Sick! Sick! Sick!!! We must continue forward and remove them from our society. They are the virus, we are the antidote.