Committed gay couples deserve equal protection under the 14th Amendment. No rational argument denies that, and indeed the Prop 8 people have stated as much.
What the Prop 8 people object to is the method gay couples are employing to obtain equal protection.
Marriage is and always has been in the time-honored cultural tradition a committed union "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage, and that's a given no-brainer, not a matter for rational conjecture. Historical tiny anectdotal occurences of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.
Those who support Prop 8 see things as they truly are and wish to continue to respect the time-honored tradition of marriage as it truly is.
Gays, however, in their defense, have a right to equal protection under the law in union of committed couples, just as married people do.
The problem here is that marriage would have to be redefined to include gays, and that's a ludricrous notion to Prop 8 supporters, as then "marriage" would no longer mean what it always has been to them: a time-honored cultural tradition between a man and a woman as husband and wife which thereby definitively has great meaning to them. The word "marriage" simply can't be redefined to include gays as it would then cease to be marriage by all that is important historically in making marriage meaningful throughout history.
Equal protection is really the issue here, truly the only rational issue.
So what is the solution to give equal protection to committed gay couples?
Simple: expand the definition of civil union contracts to include the same legal protections as marriage contracts.
This solves everyone's problems: 1) gay couples get equal protection, and they can create a separate unique term to describe that special civil union, 2) straight couples retain meaningful value in their time honored tradition of mariage.
So why isn't that the direction being taken?
Because gay people have waited long enough, their leaders say, for such action to occur, and it's not occurring. We're tired of waiting, they say, as it takes too long to do things the correct way.
So gay leaders decided to push the issue by attempting to redefine a long-defined cultural tradition -- marriage -- to remove the foundational "man and a woman as husband and wife", which is, rationally, a ludicrous suggestion.
But where democracy exists, anything is possible .. and gay leaders reasoned this approach was a win-win for them. Either they would incredibly succeed, thereby instantly guaranteeing and equal protection avenue for gay couples, or they would fail but so rally everyone's attention that civil unions would be modified en masse across the country to grant committed gay couples their constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection.
However, gay leaders neglected, in their effort, to be considerate of the great majority -- married couples (straight by definition) -- they would offend. In fact, many gay leaders simply expressed that they could care less about what married couples (straight by definition) thought about the matter. Indeed, gay leaders, so filled with animosity toward those they accused of blocking gay couples' equal protection rights, may not have realized their egregious approach would most certainly be an offense to others .. resulting, understandably in the Prop 8 action.
Those who argue in favor of gays having equal protection under the law by ludicrously redefining the traditionaly protected word "marriage" are too often unethically looking the other way at the very real damage being done to the time-honored tradition of marriage in the eyes of those who respect it for what it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
I find it rather hypocritical that those gays and liberals who rage about injustice are being insensitive to the injustice they themselves are attempting to do to an entire class of people in this matter: married couples (straight by definition).
Married people -- straight by definition -- via the supporters of Prop 8 are simply saying that marriage belongs to us by meaningfully valued definition and that gays, though they have the right to equal protection, have no right to break in and steal from us what we so greatly value: our term "marriage" and its meaning.
That's a most valid complaint, and if the shoe were on the other foot I'm pretty sure gay leaders would more easily incline to agree.
This issue really isn't about whether gays have the right to equal protection, it's about the method they're employing to secure it: invasive thievery of a time-honored institution that is greatly valued as meaningful to those who have participated in it as it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Gay leaders would do well to realize that the very people they are invading and stealing from here are in favor of supporting their (gay) equal protection rights for committed couples. It just seems really stupid, therefore, for gay leaders to antagonize a great majority like this that supports their goal, as that can't serve them well in the long-run.
It is imporant for gay leaders to understand that gays comprise only about eight to nine percent of the population, and although their very small numbers in no way means their committed couples are not entitled to equal protection under the law, their present approach of invading and stealing a time-honored tradition from those who value its meaning is without a question an act of tyranny of the minority.
Gays may lament that their sexual orientation that exists through no choice of their own rightly prevents them from "marrying" .. and yeah, it is kind of sad, like it's sad that a man with no legs really wants to play pro football .. but can't, obviously. But in no way does such frustration justify the invasive thievery gay leaders are advocating to secure equal protection. Those of us who live with challenges must play the hand that was dealt us, and without selfishly making others miserable because we feel "cheated" by God or fate or whatever.
Liberals, I would argue, not surprisingly support gay leaders in their invasive thievery method of securing equal protection, which they do because their pre-conceived ideology demands that they follow liberal party philosophy even if it means commiting an egregious act against another segment of the population.
Liberals would do well to realize that ignoring the meaningful tradition of others that in no way, by time-honored definition, offends gays or prevents them from securing their equal protection rights through honorable means, only leads to an attitude of war and increased animosity between straights and gays. Liberals would do well, if they really are the "peace lovers" they say they are, not to embrace quick-fix shortcuts that come at the angering expense of an innocent group of people: those who value marriage (straight by definition).
And for liberals to "claim" to not see this real issue as I've presented, or pooh-pooh it as being "less imporant" than securing equal protection for committed gay couples by egregious quick-fix means, are, well, likely not very bright .. or honorable .. and reflects ignorance and insensitivity on the part of liberals.
This invasive thievery method of securing equal protection for gay couples is not progress.
Great wars have understandably been faught over matters such as these .. and understandably so.
A word to the wise.
