Would someone please explain to me how the 'gay marriage' movement would prevent a man and woman from getting married?
It doesn't stop them, it drastically diminishes the meaning of the term "marriage". Opens it up to some thing other than it has meant throughout known history.
Why have someone explain this to you? Your question is not a valid question as it is premised in moral relative construct that denies "we the people" control the government. The actual question is how can a judge legitimately go against the will of the people evidenced by history, common law and enacted law through elected representatives and decide by personal judicial fiat supplemented by the proverbial "much consideration" or even foriegn legal precedent to decide what constitutes a legitimate moral position and or societal interest.
The judge should be booted from the bench.
It wouldn't.
As would neither any other sham, farcical or pretend "marriage" prevent a man and a woman from entering into marriage.
Marriage has been recognized socially and culturally as between opposite sexes for at least all of recorded history.
It is given special status because of its unique role in the propagation and continuity of society.
No other relationship is comparable.
To redefine it to suit some sexually confused individuals demeans and dishonors marriage.
Trust our ancestors and Nature. Get with the program.
Let these "gay" people fight for their own union, call it 'pairriage' or whatever else they would like to name it but they can't have marriage.
Who said, that perverted movement would "prevent a man and woman from getting married"?
A very transparent attempt on your party to confuse the argument through the use of a straw-man.