Also, I would like to see where you get your statistics from as far as 3-5% of the population. I have a feeling that those numbers are quite larger than what you would have imagined.

Finally, I agee that there are individuals (a very minimal number though) out there who claim their sexuality based on what they think is hip and cool. However for the majority, it's not a choice. It's who they are.

These individuals are hard working, tax paying citizens of this country. Why are we denying them the same rights as heterosexual couples? This isn't really a debate of if they deserve it, they do – they earned it the moment they became citizens of the country.

What I found even more irksome is that gays are an extreme minority in this country, maybe 3-5 % of the population, where has all of this influence come from? There should be a time when the wishes of the majority out paces the “needs” of the minority. We should not be redifining an institution that is thousands of years old to satisfy a few thousand couples that want to marry.

I am very happy about the results of prop 8. Based on the outcome, the only way it can be overturned is if the US Supreme court decides to define gays as a protected class, which would change the legal landscape of this country. With so many confused people walking around being gay on tuesday and Straight on Friday, I am confident that homosexuals will not get be classified in the same league as women, racial groups or the disabled–all things that don't change.

If we can agree that all gays and lesbians should be given legal rights akin to marriage and it would be discriminatory not to do so, then why don't we just change the vernacular.

Anyone who wants to have rights, benefits and responsibility under the law will be recognized as a civil union. Those who want that union recognized by their church can get married at the altar. So if ANYONE wants the Government to recognized the partnership….CIVIL UNIONS…gay or straight.
If you want a marriage…then go to your pastor and ask them to marry you.

But let us be clear…you will no receive government benefit if you are only “married” in a church. You must go through the process of a civil union.

In a nutshell. let us revoke the power of any church to perform any ceremony that has any civil or governmental benefit.

If the Southern Baptist congregation decides that I am going to hell for who I love then so be it. I can go to another church. But when it is the government making that decision is a whole different matter…it is SUPPOSED to be a government for ALL of the people…it is ludicrous that I should go to another country.

Bottom line, one single denomination does not get the right to decide to parse out the benefits of citizenship.

I am a gay black male and at times I have felt uneasy about calling gay relationships marriages. My opinion is that we all should be afforded equal protection under the law and should be allowed to live freely in our own pursuit of happiness. What I mean by this is that gay couples should be giving full rights as straight couples. We need a term that is unique for people who are gay and on any official document it could be used interchangeably (legally binding and respected) with the term marriage. This is an area where I differ (use of the term marriage) from some of my gay brothers and sisters. **I know my argument will get me into trouble with those who say that separate terms can not mean equal treatment…I just have not thought it out that far yet.** My reason for this does not come from any religious principles, but I really think that in order for gay relationships to work we need our own term. The term marriage is for straights; however, the right to have a legally sanctioned relationship with a significant other does not belong to straights.

I always thought State/U.S. constitutions laid out what we were entitled to and it was the role of judges and justices to determine what these entitlements mean. To explicitly include what would otherwise amount to hate by banning gay marriages in any constitution adulterates the document and excludes a whole segment of people. Further, I thought that constitutions were documents that execute the role government and the protection clauses were to protect people from the government. My point is that banning gay marriage has nothing to with government and all to do with church. I hope that we will someday get the church out of government. Constitutions are contracts between the government and the people.

I am a gay black male and at times I have felt uneasy about calling gay relationships marriages. My opinion is that we all should be afforded equal protection under the law and should be allowed to live freely in our own pursuit of happiness. What I mean by this is that gay couples should be giving full rights as straight couples. We need a term that is unique for people who are gay and on any official document it could be used interchangeably (legally binding and respected) with the term marriage. This is an area where I differ (use of the term marriage) from some of my gay brothers and sisters. **I know my argument will get me into trouble with those who say that separate terms can not mean equal treatment…I just have not thought it out that far yet.** My reason for this does not come from any religious principles, but I really think that in order for gay relationships to work we need our own term. The term marriage is for straights; however, the right to have a legally sanctioned relationship with a significant other does not belong to straights.

I always thought State/U.S. constitutions laid out what we were entitled to and it was the role of judges and justices to determine what these entitlements mean. To explicitly include what would otherwise amount to hate by banning gay marriages in any constitution adulterates the document and excludes a whole segment of people. Further, I thought that constitutions were documents that execute the role government and the protection clauses were to protect people from the government. My point is that banning gay marriage has nothing to with government and all to do with church. I hope that we will someday get the church out of government. Constitutions are contracts between the government and the people.

1.) Though many children are raised in a single parent home, we would all probably agree that the best environment for a child would be to have both a mother and a father – I know that I wish I would have. Don't future children deserve it too?

2.) There will be an attack on institutions today that have the ability to operate in a discretionary manner. Many of these institutions rely on the tax exemption status, which will be denied if they do not uphold the state law. For example:
Catholic Adoption Agency in Massachutes
Methodist Church and Gay Marriage Lawsuit Battle

…these are from states that recognize a same sex marriage.

These are just a couple that I can think of.

Marriage is a natural and sacred institution. It is natural because it naturally produces life. Only a man and a woman can come together and create life. It is a sacred institution because it was given to us by God. It is a covenant, a vow that husbands and wives make before witnesses and with God. I think that it is pretty clear that God isn't in the homosexual marriage business, and therefore neither should we be.

Do you know that there has never been any civilization that has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage? Throughout all of history, there has not been one culture that has done so. Even during the Roman era, when people were doing all kinds of crazy things, they didn't believe that marriage could ever be considered anything other than between a man and a woman.

I really don't understand what is going on in our society, but I pray that we will all see that there are some things that we used to hold sacred…marriage being one of them.

God Bless…