“Burn in hell.” “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.” “I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi’s [sic] in the newspaper….Don’t worry though, we have plans for you and your friends.”

The above are just a few of the threats received by supporters of last November’s Proposition 8 in California as reported by CNSNews.com: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41735.

The reader may recall that Prop 8 was a proposal to amend California’s Constitution to protect and insure the sanctity of marriage with these 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Amazingly, especially for liberal Californians, the measure passed resoundingly by a margin of almost 600,000 votes, or 52.3 % to 47.7%.

(Lest anyone think the Left-Coasters were in a Yea-happy, conservative mood on November 4th, five other propositions went down to defeat of the twelve on the ballot, including Proposition 4 which would have mandated parental notification before aborting a minor’s baby and Prop 5, designed to beef up law enforcement: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm.)

That should have been it, right? The people had spoken, loudly and unambiguously through a fair and valid constitutional initiative and voted against homosexual marriage in the state of California. Unfortunately, that did not put an end to the controversial movement to permit same sex couples to marry; it was just the beginning.

Immediately following passage, gays took to the streets to protest the measure, protests which are entirely legal and permissible in our great country. What wasn’t legal and permissible was the nature of those protests, detailed previously here in various articles, including this piece which recounts the despicable abuse of straight rights in the name of gay rights: http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=645….

(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)

The State already dictates who can marry, by virtue of age laws (minors cannot consent) and relation closeness (brother and sister, 1st cousins, etc, cannot marry.) The reasons are based on health, especially where it relates to procreation. This is a vital key, as it is focused on the purpose. When children are born, marriage defines paternity in many states. If you redefine the parameters of marriage, you affect the purpose. If a child is born to a partner of a same sex couple (one partner as both cannot create a biological child together), marriage of same sex couples could then, by definition, eliminate the rights of the other biological parent, by declaring the other same sex partner as the legal parent. This also infringes on the rights of the child, as each person has a right to have knowledge of both parents. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE!!! If a child never knows of his other parent, they could stumble into a sexual relationship with a half sibling, inadvertantly. This is why many recipients of sperm donation have begun to seek out the other children of the same sperm donor. Do you have any idea of the genetic anomolies that occur from a sibling sexual relationship?

Consequently, understanding marriage is a matter of understanding its purpose in society. Go to http://www.usconstition.org and search on marriage. It explains the history of marriage. It will answer a number of questions. Marriage is a right…but it is a right for the sake of the children produced by that union, not solely for the two parties. To ignore this important purpose redefines the fabric of society.

I guess I was wrong.

This isn’t just about discrimination, bigotry, or hate. The people that voted yes have real concerns about the legal implications of gay marriage, that don’t necessarily come from hatred of gay people. Many that voted yes didn’t vote to stop gay people from marrying- they voted against state law interfering with their churches and schools. You might not agree with them, but you need to really think about what discrimination means.

I asked some “yes on 8″ people about their reasons for voting that way. Take a few minutes to listen to why people disagree with you. I posted the interviews here: http://www.discovertheuser.com/prop8

Love the Canadian bandwagon argument.