The State sanctified "marriage" is a contract signed by two consenting adults. This legal document cannot be denied to a group of Americans simply because of the gender of the two seeking the union of such a document. Prop 8 stated only that the word "marriage" be defined as a "union between a man and a woman". This, however, does nothing to deny the pursuit of equal rights under a different term, or seeking legislature to equalize civil unions with the rights associated with marriage.
If this were simply a matter of terminology, I truly believe we would see less of an issue raised by the gay community. It is, however, a matter of equality and civil rights that this be fought in the courts. The majority of CA voters who passed Prop 8 imposed their will on the Constitution (as it is a right), however, created an unconstitutional, yet now legal differentiation between the hetero and homosexual communities, by labeling the gay community as unfit or unworthy to receive equal rights in marriage. The Yes on 8 campaign painted pictures that the failure to pass the proposition would cause the fall of morals and values, be a breach of Religious Freedoms (no kidding, I saw the signs in Sacto), and would open the door to the inevitable legalization of ludacris and harmful fetishes such as pedophilia and beastiality.
The Pro 8's chose fear, sex, and children to defend a platform which would only serve to perpetuate greater midunderstanding about the gay community as a whole. Many whom I have spoken to refer to the "Gay Agenda" and the disingenuous ad campaign targeting the parents of elementary age kids that insinuated that their children would be exposed to some kind of force that would then cause them to possibly become gay. This has been their platform the whole time! "Allow the gays to marry, and more people will become gay!" This is, of course, ridiculous! Having sex is a choice, but chosing who are going to be attracted to is not. If you are able to fall in love with someone of your gender, and you seek a living partnership with them, then any American should be entitled to that.
The three arguements that surface against gay marriage are immaterial when presented in front of any court. God does not speak for the State, nor does the State speak for God. Breeding is not legally obligated to be take place by married couples. Your personal opinion of gays and whether you like it or not is purely subjective opinion, not to be taken as fact or legal doctrine.
All of this said, the religious estalishment has already set itself up for failure. By hijacking the word "marriage" in the CA state constitution, they have disallowed themselves any leverage to continue the "seperate but equal" policy of civil unions. Rights cannot be denied to the people should they be sought outside of the blanket term of marriage, because that's not what the religious right fought for. They fought for the word. And words can be rendered meaningless with the well thought out and logical arguements that, especially in this case, cannot be contested for any reason the Pro 8's have. This will cause the complete loss of political capital that the word "marriage" currently possesses, and will serve to politically castrate the religious establishment as this is the last great taboo that still exists for them to build power behind.
Once they have nothing else they can fight for, the traces of added religion to this countrys oaths and promises will be removed, God will end up remaining in His churches and in the hearts of those who believe, and "seperation of church and state" will begin to be real in this country. One nation, indivisable, with Liberty and Justice for All.
