@C.R. - you are a HATEFUL BIGOT! O.K. now we are on the same level of stupidity so we can reason together. Do you people ever get tired of listening to yourselves talk? No wonder you all feel so depressed and dejected. Everyone around you who considers sodomy and homosexuality immoral and degrading behavior must also therefore "hate, discriminate, persecute, condemn, ect, ect, ect, ......". As if the guilt associated with participating in such acts weren't enough already you pile in on yourselves pretending the rest of us actually care enough to hate you. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you C.R., but here I go. WE DON'T CARE!!! We simply choose not to publicly redefine one of the most basic institutions of society in a vain and misguided attempt to sooth a burning conscience. If you choose to participate in exploring new heights of sexual perversion with someone equipped very much like you are, knock yourself out C.R. WE DON'T CARE!!! You have all the "equal protection" you need to pursue such things and no one CARES enough to get in your way.

@C.R. - BIGOT?? Understand the word, look up the definition. We are tired of the name calling. Your "quest" will never, never, never, pass. Look how you and your babies are acting. Name calling, vandalizing, violence, etc. You are proving to the nation your stupidity.

@C.R. - It is the gay community that is seeking to change the order of things by imposing a fundamental redefinition of the intrinsic purpose of marriage. Only by stripping marriage of its principal salient purpose can you turn this to an equal protection issue.

The government guarantees student loans because having an educated population is important for perpetuating society.

Is it, therefore, discriminatory if the government refuses to guarantee loans for some other purpose? Namely, is it reasonable for me to claim that I'm being discriminated against if the government won't guarantee a loan for me to start a business?

I assert that the benefits of marriage granted by the state are legitimate means of encouraging men and women to marry, have children and raise balanced, enlightened and self-disciplined children who understand the value of virtue and are devoted to and capable of carrying civilization on their shoulders; that the state has a compelling interest to that end; and that MARITAL RECOGNITION AND MARITAL BENEFITS SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED FOR ANYTHING LESS.

Thus, I believe, the State does have a compelling interest in incentivizing heterosexual marriage.

Pray tell, what is the state's implicit compelling strategic interest for incentivizing marriage between two men?

I believe it is self-evident that the purpose of marrying a man and a woman is fundamentally different and richer than any purpose you can articulate for "marrying" two men.

Marriage constitutes the sanctioned institution for the legitimate exercise of procreative power.

This only becomes an equal rights or equal protection issue if we were to recast marriage as nothing more than a legal commitment between two people who love each other. Thus, the gay movement seeks to do violence to the traditional institution of marriage by fundamentally redefining its purpose; and stripping it of its most salient and unique feature.

Back to the business loan/student loan example. Just as a reasonable person will conclude that my claim of discrimination (because the government won't guarantee my business loan while it guarantees student loans) is specious, likewise, any reasonable person will conclude that denying marriage to gays is not an equal protection or equal rights issue unless you radically redefine the purpose of marriage.

You are mistaken and deceived if you buy into the lie that the churches' defensive stand is offensive in nature. It is the immoral/amoral who are on the offensive and seek to impose a new worldview by recasting the purpose of marriage as something else - and it does have profound implications for civilization and society.

You might still think that such a change is desirable and that you want to live in a society wherein the contrast between virtue and decrepitude is blurred. Perhaps you like the idea of loosening moral restraint and want your kids to inherit such a world. You are within your rights to attempt to instantiate such a place. But at least be honest enough with yourself to recognize that you are thus seeking to impose a new world view in place of the old one.

And be warned, your choices will define your destiny. Those who work to do violence to the ordained institution of marriage by redefining it will find themselves answerable to God for what they've done. Those who stand on the sidelines, blind and apathetic to the stakes will also inherit the wind.

@C.R. - C.R What makes a nation strong are it's committments to values and ways of life. Our nation was built and defined by Jedeo Christian principals.

Every country on this earth has laws, religion, and moral definitions that keep their society intact. For most of the middle east it is the principals of Islam, for Asia it is Buddism. Each of these countries derived most of their laws to reflect the majority of the moral and religious belief system.

Some third world countries have matriaricle societys, they believe in polyandry, the men are subsurvient to the women. Their society has functioned that way sucessfully for thousands of years because they adhere to the moral principals laid out.

So back to America, our laws reflect the major religious values that were intentionally established in the beginning.

So today a minority group (gay and lesbians) want to change major laws for them. Tommorrow it will be groups who believe in pedofilia (they already exist) wanting laws to protect them, then Beastiality and so on. So where does it end????? If you think this is redicolous then you need to do some research on the pedofile groups.

So if a society constantly changes it's principals and values to meet all the needs of a minority the country eventually the country ends up dissolving.

So this is where it ends, it ends by not starting, not starting to appease every minority group regarding issues that redefine the nations laws.

@C.R. - C.R. If you want to make a real statement in a community direct it to the little town of American Fork.
They allowed an adult store in their city for Husbands and Wives. Don't you find that a little bigoted?

Chris and his wife started up the shop and slid it through city council. Yes in the very heart of downtown you can witness a mild sex shop. Let it be known that there is very little shopping to be found by Gays and Lesbians at the shop. Is it because they are not Husbands and Wives? You tell me why not one Gay Rights group in Utah has gone after the shop. You would think they would since they do not sell to that community.

@C.R. - ......"Don't ask and don't tell". People who deviate from the sexual norm are not accepted as equals in the US military. Equal protection under the law does not apply to holy matrimony which has it's foundation in religion. To say the same sex unions are equal to marriages between one man and one woman is to stare reality in the face and deny it.

Most any child can tell you what nature intended and what is supposed to go where.

@C.R. - ...... on Prop 8 while they were ahead. Now that the folks in California have made their will known at the ballot box the losers want to throw temper tantrums. You need to stand up and take your loss like a man.

@SoJoBoy - Donations to campaigns are not tax deductible. I'm a politician and know this from experience.

@Al - Barbara Streisand and others
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1078505/Barbra-Streisand-host-stars-support-gay-marriage-campaign-California.html

Steven Speilberg and others
http://www.looktothestars.org/news/1267-steven-spielberg-says-no-to-proposition-8

Apple Computer
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10074793-37.html

Google Cofounders
http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_10795816