Whoa, children....children...children.
This isn't about the right or wrong of gay marriage.
Gay marriage supporters get Prop 8 on the ballot, thinking "well, we all know the voters will support us!"
Prop 8 dies.
It gets litigated, because, well those voters are too stupid to know what they are doing!
It gets overturned by a clearly biased and activist homosexual judge.
I pretty much agree and fixed it a bit.
I still have yet to hear one logical argument against gay marriage that does start with because my religion said so, or because marriage is between a man and a woman. If anyone has an actual reason I'd love to hear it here.(1)
No one is trying to force Your church to gay marry anyone, but Prop 8 supporters want to stop ALL churches from gay marrying people. (2)
Doesn't Prop 8 go against the 1st Amendment? (3)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "
Might not be Congress but it sure appears the government is trying to stifle some peoples religious exercises. Plus its simple discrimination, why is that so hard to understand?(4)
(1)You haven't been listening.
A nation and a gov't has an interest in marriage, of the usual type.
Without them and their issue, there will be no more nation and gov't.
Also, such arrangements are encouraged because it reduces crime (from bastard children raised by their mothers and unmarried adult men), reduces illegitimate births leading to welfare suckage (by single mothers and bastard children), and is the most efficient means to raise children. Marriage also reduces the incidents of health care problems in men (Nagging to death does have an effect, ladies), due to neglect of health and to sexually transmitted disease.
"Gay" marriage is of little moment. It produces no issue, is a Darwinian dead end, and most are shams, anyway, with 50%+ being "open" marriages. Homosexual unions provide no benefit by attenuating any social ills.
There is no "upside" for fellow citizens & taxpayers to give it gov't recognition, just extra cost.If they want to run around claiming they are married with like-minded cotton-headed folk, fine, let them abuse the concept, the English language, and the institution. Don't expect the taxpayers and their employers to support their pathetic fantasy with recognition, legal status, and cash when the taxpayers get bupkis from the deal.
I have gone from supporting civil union verbiage to being against both "gay" marriage and civil unions since the queer lobby's antics on Prop 8. Such poor behavior ought to have deleterious consequences.
(2) They are trying to force others to recognize it via means of force (law). Many, many examples of this.
(3) Uh, it wasn't Congress and it had no religious component. No first amendment issue. Any shaman stinking of patchouli & BO can declare them "married" and they prance about and feel all the love from fellow goofballs. What they can't do is claim to gov't, which has an interest in real marriage, that they are married.
(4)
You do not understand. Under the current regime, WRT equal treatment under the law/14th Amend, everyone is treated equally: you can only marry another live human of the opposite sex who is also unmarried.
1. Shouldn't the real question be, what in the US Constitution allows states/fed to regulate marriage?
2. So we should take away rights because it is expensive now?
3. That sounds like a different issue that should be discussed.
4. lol really? So it's for the children now? 
5. edit - Also I remember hearing a bit on the news last night where the judge cited the 14th Amendment as one of the reasons.
1. For the love of snaggle-toothed Xenu...
COTUS addresses this in Article IV, Sec 1.
Also, COTUS is a document listing the powers of fed gov't, explicitly leaving all other powers to the states or the people.
2.
Marriage, even the real sort, is not a right. No one can be compelled to marry you if you are unmarried, thus fulfilling your "right to marry." Either in the sense that someone officiates or in hte sense that someone is now married to you.
Recognition of marriage by gov't and the legal, financial, and other such are a benefit provided by the gov't because the gov't & the citizenry have an interest in promoting real marriage.
OTOH, if gov't recognized gay marriage, those so gay-married can compel via violence (force of law) to provide certain benefits if htey are provided for real marriages.
3. No, it is very, very germane and part of the issue, becasue the isue hinges on gov't recognition of marriage and the legal effects.
4. Partly. As I stated above, real marriage has many benefits to citizens who pay taxes and are possible crime victims. Thus, there is a gov't interest.
5. Addressed above. Too many folk think "equal treatment" means "gov't enabling me to get my freak on and legal recognition of my freak status."
RevDisk:
Social institutions have been recognized by gov't since the founding. You can see some of them in the COTUS itself. The standard you are labeling "conservative" is actually better called "anarchist." This is one of the dividing lines between those who want the US Constitution to be followed and libertarians. Strict constitutionalism != libertarianism.
This front in the culture war was opened by the radical gay lobby. In order to defend an institution mentioned in both the COTUS and many state constitutions, it is right and proper to use constitutional & legal means.
