I think in the long run it's gonna be another case where. We asked the first time and it didn't get passed, we ask again still no take, eventually it will be passed without asking and the American people will have to suffer through yet another thing we didn't want in the first place, then told it was our "Democracy" that determined it, and "isn't that great".

Your operating under two common misconceptions:

1) Marriage is fundamentally religious in  nature.

This is not true, and the law does not recognize a marriage unless people go through the legal proceedings to become married.  And marriage existed long before any Judeo-Christian conception of marriage existed.

2) Churches are being forced to marriage gay people.

Your first point is understandable, but this is the ultimate red herring.  No church has been forced to marry gay people.  The government cannot force churches to marry gay people and has not forced churches to marry gay people.  Neither the government or any specific individual has the right to force a church to do anything (unless the church is systematically discriminating against people because of race or some other factor and will not allow them to attend church services).

 I am all for having the term marriage removed as an ideal solution. I get where you are coming from I really do. You are just fighting the wrong fight on this one. Legally marriage does not, and cannot require religious approval. Discriminating against a minority based on a set of principles that cannot be applied to a legal definition is absurd. You need to fight to have the term marriage removed from any legal definition rather than keeping it from being applied to a new group.

 Wow, it has been a long time since I have seen anyone so desperately construct a straw man arguement. I am saying flat out sexual orientation is hard-wired yes. Fetishes are not hard wired though. Sexual orientation is not a fetish. Everything you described is a fetish and entirely seperate from the concept of sexual orientation.

I can just see the next Cali proposition......

"The State of California Judicary branch shall have no jurisdiction over citizen passed bills"

This is amusing. I agree with Wessle Woggle, but for entirely different reasons. I don't believe homosexuality is 'natural' or 'right' and with that, I don't believe there are really that many cases where people don't have a choice on the matter. I don't believe that  warrants attacking the person in question in any manner, provided they aren't accosting straight people, I just don't agree that those preferences should be considered as being acceptable.
Basically, like smoking; It's up to you if you want to do it, it's none of my business, just please don't do it around me, or my children, or try to convince me or my children that it's the cool thing to do, but I'm not going to beat you up just cause I see you lighting up.

I boil it down to a very simple look at the idea as a whole: If everyone in the world were straight, the world would keep right on running with no issues. If every person in the world were gay the human race would die out in 100 years. If you have two choices, and one choice can function alone, and the other choice cannot function without at least some inclusion of the first choice, then there's a problem with that other choice.

Thing is, as far as loving a guy vs loving a girl, I've got no issues with either one, but just cause love is there doesn't mean you need SEX to be involved in that. An incredibly deep relationship between two men that doesn't involve sex and stuff is not just totally acceptable in my eyes, but admirable. The need to include sex in that strikes me as much the same as recreating the mona lisa with a dick in her mouth. Actually, in many ways I feel that trumpeting the gay agenda has actually had a backlash on this, as straight guys are too worried about coming across as gay if they form an emotional connection with another guy.

Furthermore, I can't understand the interest. I have a cock, I know how it works, why would I be interested in some other guy's cock? Women though, that I knew nothing about until I actually got experience on the subject, even then I don't fully understand it, and am still learning even to this day.

But other than those issues, I don't really view women and men as being that different, in terms of potential. There's a tendency for guys to act a certain way and women to act in a different way, but that's hardly the case for all men and women. The people who go; "I'm into men because women are backstabbing bitches" or "i'm into women because all men are pigs" just come across as being stupid about the relationships they get into and all too willing to just give up on the entire gender simply because of a few bad runs, and that's essentially gender bigotry there.

Heck, if it weren't for all that, I could even possibly be bisexual myself, but there's nothing to pique my curiosity, no reason why I feel that a relationship with a guy would require it in any way, by my basic reasoning it's really not "perfectly natural" and my perfect partner ended up being a woman anyway. If my fiance were a guy, I would probably still have just as deep of a connection with "him" but I just wouldn't see the need for sex to be part of that. Heck, sex isn't a requirement for our relationship as it is, it's just an activity I enjoy with her due to the fact that it is perfectly natural.

No where in the US constitution is any thing mentioned about direct democracy. The power of the people rests in their ability to elect representative.

Referendums are tools of tyranny. Vaguely worded, allowing only a yes or no in a situation that is much more complicated than a simple paragraph can allow.

For instance, we'll look at my glorious state.

First, Gov. Jeb Bush can't get a law passed requiring a max # of students in class rooms. It was outside the budget, so he could only get it passed by referendum. It's like that Nextel commercial with the firefighters: "Hey you guys want more teachers?" This forced a Rep. St. Congress to pass a tax hike.

Gov. Charlie Christ then endorses a "Tax Cut". He figured property values would keep going up so a tax cut wouldn't hurt property tax revenues... "Hey you guys want lower taxes?" oops.

Now the FL Constitution says: Small Classrooms and Low Property Taxes.

The legislature had to do something, they had to pick one or the other. Next year, they are laying off teachers. Thank god FL is already #48 in the country for education, so the fall won't be too far.

Moral of the story:

The state constitution is no longer valid.

Same in CA, the constitution says: "No discrimination based on Race, Religion, Age, Sexual Orientation...." and "No Same Sex Marriage"

Either way the court decides, California loses.

Edit: Found the commercial

wow Grey Acumen, you have some of the worst, most homophobic views on the matter that i have ever seen. So your fine with man loving a man, as long as they don't have sex, with each other, in the privacy of their own homes?
I am sure when you see 2 gay people, in a loving relationship, walking down the street, HOLDING HANDS, your blood just boils. God forbid they give each other a peck on the cheek.

To be perfectly honest you sound like one of those republican politicians, trumpeting homophobic hate speech, only to be found by your wife banging the Pool Boy whilst vacationing in Tia Juana.

And no, your sexuality is not a choice. There are a lot more scientific findings relating to people being born gay, than there are otherwise.

Straight guys can bang as many guys as they want and they might even enjoy it, and vice verse, but it always ends the same way. Gay men have had to suffer through loveless marriages for decades, due to social stigma.

Even i have dated a few girls in my time (thats the other thing, it is still very hard for young people, especially if they are raised by bible thumpers, to come to terms with their sexuality) i personally always found my eyes wandering to the cute waiter.

Fixed.

Umm, I think you may have taken what he was saying for more that it was.

marriage is between a man and a women i believe that is in cali constitution and that is why it is so hard for gays to get married in cali. i know some states marriages is not defined in that detail that is why some states have gay marriages. it is funny that gays pick on the mormons for doing this to them but didn't we cali folks did it to u hard real hard :). don't blame the mormons u got to blame the people in cali and all the churches that said to their subjects to vote yes on prop 8. u thought this was going to be so easy in cali that it was going to past just like that with snap of ur fingers californians voted and we voted yes on prop 8 and gays been trying to get married in our state for a long time it was on ballot a while back and it was turned down again we californians felt sorry and gave u civil unions, but u wanted more and their has to be a line.

it is hella funny when gays say it is discrimination and try to make it as big as race discrimination do u know what minorities went through to try to get equal rights for their people, and gays think their cause is as big as that hell u werent slaves u didn't die trying to build the railroads u didn't go in enterment camps because of ur race and they way ur eyes looked u weren't subject to this because of ur skin or the way u looked. that is hella funny when was a gay white person discrimnated because of skin color or beaten because of his color of skin because he looked different. i cannot hide my color or the shape of my eyes. we all know the their should be a seperation between church and state, but lets be real church and state work so closely together. we got hella lot of lefty politicians here in cali and that doesn't mean the people in cali are all lefty. we cali have really high tolerance and views than most states but we do have a line when it comes to matters that we care about and this was a big win in cali. we the people in cali voted yes on prop 8.

it is funny to me that 80 percent of blacks voted yes on prop 8 and voted for obama, and of course majority if not all gays in cali voted for obama i love the irony in this u voted for the black guy but the blacks didn't vote for u. even obama and biden didn't even want to talk about this subject in their debates because they didn't have a really good stance and didn't want to touch this subject with a ten feet poll obama could of done a lot of commericals in cali to say to his race to vote no on prop 8 but didn't because o'riley and hannity we of killed him this particular issue.

civil unions are enough u guys went to far with the marriage thing it was not the right time for marriage u should of worked and put more substance on civil unions and the next time in 4 years introduce the marriage proposal i think it was a little to early but it was a step we cali tolerate gays but don't force ur gay views down our throats. gays should be happy they even have rights some countries ur not tolerated be happy u live in us.