In 2001 Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage in civil law as being between a man and a woman. Within their reach of power, the state supreme court overturned that ruling as "unconstitutional", and now those persons are back to vote the same measure into law via an amendment to the state constitution.
The Hell do you think that meant, other than to keep gays from marrying? Do you have anything of a counter-argument for the California Supreme Court's decision?
I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is.
What a croak of shit. In all cases where this whole "defining marriage via constitutional amendments" it was always about denying gays the ability to get married. Especially now that gays are able to marry in California this amendment to the stat constitution WOULD remove their ability (thus right) to get married. Oops. Guess that goes against your statement of "I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples."
I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.
Because you're a traditionalist moron. Especially since you just stated that all marriage, regardless of what religion (or lack thereof) should be defined by your particular brand of religion's definition, which is retarded. What was that about establishing religions?
"To make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe."
— Carl Sagan