The results made me slap my head and realize what a dolt I’d been. The irony is that the same white liberals who typically call for more “diversity, diversity!” suddenly found themselves the victims of California’s huge populations of Hispanic Catholics and evangelical blacks. Suddenly they were saying “No, not THAT kind of diversity!”

While the white liberals were foolishly campaigning in predominantly white towns, the Mormon Church was wisely funding campaigning in black & Hispanic towns. The result? Equality lost, and religious zealotry won.

Every political group is made up of all kinds of people, and every social group is made up of all kinds of people. Get out and vote, you can never count on your “tribe” doing what you expect.

I think proposition 8 is going to be the camel back breaker. For the first time in decades I’m sensing a real rage spreading through the gay and progressive straight communities. Melissa Etherige has come out with a taxation boycott of California. With taxtation comes representation she reminds us.

With the black american civil rights movement reaching a sort of apex the gay civil rights movement can take the baton and run with it. Ironically it seems higher numbers of black voters in this election pushed the amendment through. This is a sad irony. When Obama was conceived his parents relationship was still barred by law in as much as a third of the United States. The country he would grow up to lead.

I hope this rage can be maintained and harnessed. America is and aleays been a promise. Like all generation before us we need to do whatever we can to reach towards that promise, and render more and more of that drean into a reality. Like our parents and their parents before them, we need to leave an America with more freedoms and more equility to our childrens than the one we grew up in ourselves.

—–
This pundit put it better than I could.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443

I also disagree with the notion of calling gay marriages “civil unions”. The definition of marriage hasn’t been the same throughout all cultures in history. If the religious folks want to distinguish their marriages from the rest, they are free to adopt their own cute pet names for it like “civil unions” or Baptist-marriage” or what have you.

It’s working here in Canada. I’m proud of that.

You display civility in your post… but little reason.

The sentence “its (the recognition of marriage by the state) only purpose is to ensure that the natural offspring of such a union are properly protected and cared for,” which appears to be the basis for your opinion and your vote, says nothing about how the laws are applied.

When a couple marries today, their new legal status is recognized immediately. The state doesn’t wait until they have children, nor do they evaluate the protective or caring environment of the newly formed household. The only requirement to enter into the civil contract of marriage is that both parties be legally competent and willing to do so. Then you get the benefits. Done.

So when a heterosexual couple says, “I love you. I want to be with you forever. Let’s get married,” they can enter into a civil contract regarding property rights and immediately receive tax benefits.

But when a homosexual couple says, “I love you. I want to be with you forever,” it is now written into California’s constitution that they may not proceed to marriage nor receive any benefits from the state.

There is no reason I can think of why this should be so.

The State has no such overriding interest in the homosexual relationship, which do not, by nature, produce offspring, so there is no need for State enforcement of rights and responsibilities in that relationship.

‘by nature’? That’s the naturalistic fallacy.
Most in homosexual relationships that persist for more than 4 years seek to have children – by adoption, artificial insemination, or co-operation with someone outside of the marriage. Homosexuals raise children with about the same frequency that heterosexuals do. The ‘no children’ argument is nonsense.

Rationalizing bigotry, no matter how slight is still bigotry. Just ask any African-Americans that lived through the civil rights movement what they may think about “separate but equal”. And there is still the alarming similarities in the rhetoric to the Loving v. Virginia case. Or is that sort of bigotry also okay?

If we choose to take the stance that the government only supports marriages that can potentially produce the next generation we run into other problems. As you brought up, offspring are the nature result of heterosexual sexual intercourse. There really isn’t any argument one can put forth to fight that. A child is never going to result from homosexual sexual intercourse no matter how much effort is involved.

So the potential to produce the next generation, that is our marriage requirement. So suppose a couple is sterile. It doesn’t matter exactly how, just that they are unable to produce a child. One could then make the argument that because they are unable to contribute bodies to the next generation, they shouldn’t be conferred the privileges that a potentially producing couple.

Now despite the objection which I bring to the table, I do find your reasoning to be… well, reasonable. It both gives a practical reason why not to have gay marriage and it put forth a platform from which a real dialogue can be had. And honestly, if I was convinced that more of the people that are against gay marriage are against it with your reasoning I’d be less disgusted. But it still seems like too many people are against it for fearful, hateful, or other misguided reasons.