Because fact is many relgions consider being gay to be a sin and isn’t that in a way respecting a establisment of religion?

Because what part of the First Amendment do they don’t understand?

So while I do not have an opinion about same sex marriage I can relate to being in a group that faces challenges and tries to deal with those challenges to the best of my ability.

How about this example? The state restricted the right of certain people to marry, based on the elected representatives interpreting the will of the majority of the people. If the Supreme Court had voted otherwise, would the law still be ‘right’?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, and Richard Perry Loving a white man, were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge…

Progress comes much more slowly in some states than others, especially those with a ballot initiative process. Therefore change can only come by changing minds, one at a time if need be. Other than to show our displeasure with the will of the majority, that is what I believe the protest is about – changing people’s minds.

every individual in the world has to decide what rule of law they will live with. the vast majority meekly accept whatever system the country they are born into has in place. eventually, those who are unhappy with their system either emigrate or work to change the system.
as i stated earlier, the calif supreme court had no choice in this matter if they were going to follow the law.
i responded to this story meaning to ask two questions. the first is: is this protest merely to state an objection to the choice the majority made in their vote?
second is: is this a desire to change the system in calif, and if so in what way?
i think the first is just noise. the fact is, these people got the issue to a vote. these people are claiming a right that does not exist in law. when they tried to get it into law the democratically leaning system turned them down. being angry is understandable but…heres where the second question comes in.
so if this minority wants to change the system with a protest, what is the structure and aim of the change? this is never stated. they want to scream at everyone that their rights are being violated. well. this is not a productive arguement.
i cannot think of a similar situation in our nations history. there may be one but i dont appear to be able to reference any. if someone wants to cite the indians, the slaves, or some other oppressed group in the past they are way off base. the similarity between those groups and the law are totally different from a vocal minority demanding to have their lifestyle be recognized by law.
i am sympathetic. i really don’t personally understand why the majority would deny marriage between same sex partners. well, they did.

I was going to do a measured response, but I think its hard to with this issue. This is especially because there are a number of same sex marriages sanctioned by the state of California before Prop 8 passed. So there are people who are delegated to a second class status because more people felt that they shouldn’t be married than people who thought that they should and voted. It may be that the next California constitution still has marriage as between one man and one woman and it might also invalidate the current California same sex marriages.

But I believe that this is a civil rights issue; that people being denied the ability to marry, and being denied all the rights that come with being married, is a civil rights issue that a majority should not deny to a minority. And that’s what we have, a majority of people saying to other people, I don’t believe you should be married simply because I don’t agree with what you do.

No. they are straight men. The gay men are the straight fashionistas.