Did Miss California lose because of her opinion on gay marriage?

[starcraft]

The Ghost of RubangB said:
starcraft, now you're treating Bacon like a second-class citizen, by telling him he was born into a sexuality that doesn't get to marry who he is emotionally inclined to marry, but has to marry who you tell him to marry whether he likes it or not.

Bacon doesn't have to marry anyone.  He has exactly the same pool or potential marriage options that I have.  Everything (well most things) in the world have definitions.  The definition of marriage means a great deal to a great deal of people for reasons that you simply refuse to see.  I am not someone that opposes gays having every social and economic right I have.  I am as opposed to those people as you are.

But at the end of the day, marriage was marriage before Bacon was born.  Were I an American I would wish him the ability to marry any woman that will have him, and share equivelant legal and economic benefits with any man that would have him.  But marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  That tradition is important to me, on the same deep and heartfelt level it is important to the vast majority of human beings.  We should not be punished or labelled intolerant for wanting to keep it that way.  In all honesty, I can understand his compulsion to want what straight people can have.  But you seem unable to comprehend why it is so important to the vast majority of humans to keep what we have, and why that would be demeaned if it was changed in this way.  Especially given most reasonable people should recognise that the difference should be in name and tradition only.  Not practicality.

Civil unions are a separate but equal clause. We've tried that in America before. We gave blacks their own drinking fountains, and their own part of the bus, so they wouldn't get our fountains and seats dirty. Now we want to give gays their own civil union contracts, so they don't get our marriages dirty. Both are offensive and neither are equal.

I view it differently I guess.  For the same reasons outlined above.  I recognise the Liberal impulse to associate horrible things like racism with this movement.  It is a pretty low attempt to equate proponents of the sanctity of marriage with racists.

With those separate but equal laws proven unconstitutional regarding race, it will be much easier to do so now regarding sexuality.

And saying that marriage was like that for MILLENNIA is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's a bad argument. Slavery was around for MILLENNIA. It's a long-standing tradition with strong roots! It's also evil.

Same goes with slavery as went with racism.  You're attempting (consciously or not) to create evil by association in the arguments of those that believe marriage is important and worth protecting for the vast majority to whom it is important.