After reading all of the posts in this thread, I have a simple question.  Where do you draw the line?  Maybe a better question, how do you draw the line?  If marriage is a right and not a product of cultural beliefs, then every U.S. citizen, regardless of age, is entitled to marry whomever they wish.   

Although we have a separation of church and state, the ceremony of marriage is so deeply ingrained in our law codes that it is one area in which the two cannot be mutually exclusive. Given this, the government, in any progressive and modern society, MUST take into account the changing views on gay marriage, regardless of how it affects the originating institution. Churches don't have to change according to the times, in fact, they mostly refuse to, and by this I mean fundamentals and ideals, not just methods, so don't argue that stuff. But the government must, and most people recognize that having a gay couple down the street is going to infect the neighborhood with AIDS. We don't care if you're gay, seriously. Most of us have gotten over it.

But in regards to the original post, "Gays must accept democracy," it's ironic to even mention in the first place. The best part of a democracy is that there are rules and systems set aside to make sure that there is no tyranny. So while Prop 8 passes, there is legislation the anti-Prop 8 crowd can utilize to overturn this decision, thus ensuring it wasn't a tyrannical decision.

So, really, YOU need to accept democracy. Gays want to try to overturn Prop 8. It's their legal right to challenge it. Get over it.

But here is the thing, and the idea which Endyess didn't address.

Marriage is NOT a religious issue.  Marriage is a governmental recognition.  Wonder why you can get married in front of a judge?  Marriage, unless you choose for it to, has absolutly nothing to do with religion.  Every single "benefit" of marriage is provided by the government, so guess what, religious reasons to deny gay marriage are absolute shit.

Oh, and Oopsie, in California, there are still major differences between civil unions and gay marriage.  One of the largest is the ability for a homosexual partner to even visit their mate in the hospital, much less make medical decisions should the family choose to interject. 

The simplest and most just answer is that you place no limit on marriage beyond consent. If some dude wants 3 husbands and 2 wives then who gives a fuck? If mom wants to marry her daughter then that's freaky shit but why should the rest of us tell them they can't get married? Let them do their thing as long as they are capable of consenting to it (i.e. they are adults and not retarded). These are pretty extreme hypothetical situations though, multi-person relationships are not particularly common in western cultures, and intra-family relationships even less so (excluding sexual abuse of children of course).

At the end of the day it wasn't much of a majority, in many countries it wouldn't even qualify as one. 

this is a perfect example of why a system of proportional representation is so much better than the American system tbh.

If you actually think America was founded purely on principles of direct democracy and "majority rules" thought, you're fucking retarded.

Here is the solution...

 

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith

 

 

p.s. I voted no on 8, I cannot vote for a law that causes negative rights and more government interference in our personal lives. I do not see how this will get through the court system as it is a law of discrimination and hate.

Muffman is now officially a jackass bastard. And not in a funny way.

Of course they fucking enjoy it, everybody loves the spotlight. Especially gays that are drama queens. Yes, I know tons of gays, shut up. But just because they enjoy it does not mean that it's a good thing. Take a look at what's actually going on here. People were denied their rights by the majority.