Reply to the Reply

First, I want to address the assertion that the question is really about the definition of marriage, like it's a pop-quiz or something.  Sure, it's possible that the average person might say that a marriage is when a man and a woman put rings on each others' fingers and decide not to see other people.  That's one definition, but it's superficial and it shouldn't be the end of the discussion.  That would be like saying that poker is about having a better hand than everyone else.

You can put together another 4 paragraph semantic argument, and talk about something being "indirect", but we both know that prop 8 was aimed right at homosexuals.  The result of it passing wasn't something obscure, like a dog not being able to marry a cat- the result was that a man could no longer marry a man.  The assertion that it's just a proposition aimed at (re-re)defining marriage that might indirectly impact homosexuals, if that's the assertion you're making, is a lie.

Second, I want to talk about this idea that there's a bunch of social engineering (policy) behind not letting dudes marry dudes; that the government doesn't need to incentivize marriage for gays because there won't be any kids, or that the government shouldn't incentivize it because then everyone would be gay and the human race would die out.  On the surface, that seems to make sense, but I want you to tell me three things that gay people don't have access to through civil unions or something that is available to married people.  I'll bet you can't do it. If there aren't any conventional social engineering carrots to be gained by allowing "marriage" to apply to the gays, then (1) that argument doesn't hold water, and (2) it starts to really like prop 8 exists solely to strip status from homosexuals.

Thirdly, let's look at the problems with society and/or marriage that don't seem big enough to fire people up.  Some large percentage (again, too lazy to look this up) of marriages between men and women end up in divorce, even with young kids involved.... Men cheat on their wives all the time; the opposite is also true.  Last week, 1saleaday had a gold-plated ring on sale for $3 (+5 shipping).  I was only half-joking when I offered to buy them for a bunch of guys coming out for a bachelor party next weekend because it would help pick up chicks.  I could go on; I just find it ridiculous that marriage has just kind of existed for the last however many years- it's been made fun of by every single sitcom ever- even your post had the classic "be careful what you wish for" sentiment, men have been beating their wives and cheating on them, women have been doing the same, there are websites devoted to matching up married men w/ married women.  All of this happens and people shrug their shoulders.  But if gay people want to get married, that gets everyone out to the polls- suddenly, marriage is something sacred that must be protected.

Finally, I want to talk about the assertion that it's lazy to dismiss a person's vote because he's dumb, or has different motives.  My question is, simply, "why?"  A frequent rallying cry on fox news is this idea that a president can retain power by establishing a welfare state.  If you're harming a few and helping the masses, the theory goes, the masses will never vote against you, and the poor doctors and lawyers and small business owners simply won't be able to protect themselves. Compare that to this situation.  If it's a problem that someone's going to try to retain power by pandering to the unwashed masses through handouts, is that somehow worse/different than pandering to the bigots to get something bigoted to pass?  I can't see where you can draw a distinction that doesn't make the second example worse.  At least, theoretically, you might be helping the poor through some form of wealth transfer.