Why is the government in the business of marriage in the first place? Would it not be prudent for the government, at the state level, to allow civil unions of persons in the interest of providing for needs of the local populace? We in California have many thriving, well-kept communities of same sex couples that have increased property values, brought in many amenities and in general allowed for a low-demand (with regard to civil services as compared to tax revenue) population.

Why not save the definition and licensing of marriage for the church? I was married in a church that required pre-marital counselling, meetings with clergy and demonstration of a committment to church values before my marriage (now at 27 years and still going strong) was "allowed" by my clergyman. To me, marriage belongs in the realm of the sacred, and the government could just as well stay out of the way.

On the civil side, I see a legal construct as required to allow for the functioning of survivorship, visitation in time of health crisis, and myriad other circumstances - having a statutory framework for such a need is prudent; hence my support for civil unions as a construct of the state.

Every biologist knows that the every chromosome including the sex chromosome is subject to copy errors. Think of the female sprinter whose times were far faster than those of other women. She was examined by a doctor who confirmed a vagina, but found no ovaries. Is she female? Does this mean that she can never marry? There are textbook cases in Samoa featuring extra X's or Y's. On the outside, someone can look like one sex or the other, but may biologically be something else entirely. These copy errors may be statistically insignificant, but as the world population approaches 10,000,000,000 there are bound to be 1,000 people with extra pieces of chromosomes. Do you think there could possibly be 1,000,000 homosexuals? How about 10,000 trans-gender persons?

I agree that civil unions should be allowed between two persons. I also agree that marriage is a sacrament in the church. However, what I hear the activists saying is that they want to be married. They want public acceptance of their relationship. We have all sorts of laws that benefit a married couple - tax laws, inheritance laws, custody laws, etc. Until these laws are rewritten to favor civil unions, the wedding celebrant will have to decide if the couple before him is a man and a woman.

Homosexuals have been marginalized by many, but not all, societies over the centuries. Christian and Islamic societies are especially punitive of homosexual lifestyles, where ostracism and death are likely outcomes if such a lifestyle is publicly revealed. In our country, homosexuals have fought for and won the same kind of social freedom that other previously marginalized groups, such as blacks and women, have won over the last several generations.

Homosexuals have never been freer in any society as a collective demographic group as they are now in the U.S. No one now blinks an eye when same sex couples purchase houses, cars or insurance policies together. We have come that far.

However, homosexuals are still not satisfied. Declaring that they will not rest until they are legislatively granted the same so-called "esteem" currently held by opposite sex couples, they insist that we go far beyond the social acceptance that has been willingly granted to them, demanding the ultimate legal validation of marriage. Not surprisingly, they are now running up hard against a barrier that takes in a far wider and deeper view of what our society is all about. For homosexuals, all the privileges and joys of sharing a life together does not require that marriage should be one of them.

Liberals who are intent on dismantling traditional social principles in our society are cheering the homosexuals on, for they share the same interests in replacing commonly shared traditions with.... nothing. In such a vacuum, our legislators, judges and media can unilaterally shape our society into whatever catches their fancy. We are already seeing this dismantling in full swing, aided and abetted by our schools, universities, media and government.

I have no problem with homosexuals sharing their lives together, and am glad to see their futures benefit greatly by being able to live the kind of lives that they want. However, marriage is a bright line that defines how our society is fundamentally structured - particularly how our children are born, raised and supported.

In demanding respect for themselves, homosexuals need to show some respect for the society that surrounds and supports them. Marriage is not a social trophy to be obtained through intimidation and complete disregard of majority opinion; those who feel this way are not bigots. Identifying any resistance to homosexual marriage as a sign of intolerance shows how little homosexuals appreciate the vast amount of tolerance that has been honestly given to them already.

There are serious reasons why marriage is considered by a majority of people in this country to be between a man and a woman. Liberals and their homosexual constituency need to respect those reasons while enjoying the vast amount of freedom they already have that is unprecedented in human history.

A "Californication judge" said that did he? Who gives a rats butt...they don't have a decent, honorable, God fearing, patriot, constitution believing, America loving judge in the whole perverted state!! imho!!! And so called republicans claimants that support queer marriage, need to watch the elections,......they won't be part of it!!!

I fully agree.

I totally disagree with you. The statement:" If Republicans flinch on marriage, America could have eight years of President Obama."

Not in his wildest dreams. American's top priorities are Jobs, Healthcare, The borders, and Freedom. We all understand they will try and use social issues to divide us, but that will be their mistake. Many many American's are losing their money, have no jobs, and fear the Mexican thugs and their loss of Freedom. The marriage thing is way down on the list of survival issues.