The people for Prop 102 are obviously wealthy. Capable of buying a gigantic sign for almost every street corner in this entire city. They are determined and their pockets are overflowing with cash. This legislation has already been shot down once.

Yes for marriage? Anyone who thinks they’re making a moral stand on gay marriage should really go back to their books on honest behavior.

Prohibiting same-gender unions has nothing to do with homosexual congress—such a law doesn’t apply to it anyway, and anyone who thinks that they should strip the rights of individuals based on that are lying to themselves about their responsibility to their fellow citizens.

Prohibiting same-gender marriage has even less to do with hetero unions—these ideas cannot be diluted by each other, they do not threaten each other, the concept of a marriage license is not one that expects anything other than a sharing of wealth and personal interests. Marriage may be about family; but it is not about having children. Want to safe marriage for children? Fine: enforce a rule that all marriages that do not result in children in with X number of years automatically dissolve. See how long that lasts.

Has anyone who wants to forward this sort of bigoted legislation thought about the implications of some of their logic? What about slender segment of our population who are androgyne and hermaphroditic—if thou art reading this and think that we must take a stand against same-gender marriage, keep in mind that human beings can be born with no (or incomplete) sex organs; and they can be born with both.

From the view of a State a marriage is just a specialized form of contract: it has nothing to do with race or creed. Insomuch that a religious official may marry a pair of individuals—but they may not license them to marry unless they are also a State official. Ever thought about that?