The people have a right to define marriage - what is marriage and what isn't marriage.
I disagree with both of you. Sound reason doesn't come down to a vote of the most people - it's rooted in the obvious, objective conclusions of any rational observer. Otherwise we can have people vote to call all cats 'dogs' and we would be compelled to do so.
And this is the implication - that homosexual "marriage" WILL be imposed on everyone. Not in the sense that everyone will be forced to "marry" someone of the same sex, but, just as totalitarian and despicably, everyone WILL be expected to at least act as if they consider it normal and healthy. Across-the-board sodomite "marriage" will result in our children being thoroughly indoctrinated in its favor, and even Christian communities will, eventually, be forced to bow to and accept it. It's happened here before, and is happening now.
Sound reason may not, but law certainly does, or at least it should. I'm not sure what you're "disagreeing about".
Throughout the history of the Republic, marriage has been left to the States to manage and regulate. Why? Because the Constitution is quite clear, things not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, are plainly left to the states.
Then we have to ask ourselves, who precisely in the state would make this decision? It could be the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, or in some states depending on that state's Constitution, it could be decided by popular referendum. But, to be clear, one of those four mechanisms will be the "decider" when it comes to homosexual marriage.
It looks as if the federal government, vis-à-vis the federal judiciary, is perched to usurp the primacy of the individual States with respect to this issue. That would be the worst possible scenario, and it was what the other poster and I were talking about.
I'm not quite sure who you would like to see make that decision. You really don't say - just that you "disagree with us".