For the sake of argument, let's say I concede this point.
I would hope that conceding the point that it's in the self-evident interest of the state to protect that which you yourself admit is the foundation of society would be for more than merely the sake of argument.
Is the allowance of gay marraiges really a threat to the existance of straight marriage?
A reasonable question. The answer is Yes. When you redefine marriage for the few, you obviously redefine marriage for the many. We're not talking about an academic debate between AHerald and MinnesotaLibertarian voicing differing definitions of marriage. We're talking about the law of the land.
I believe it's a very real threat as evidenced by every other redefinition of once unthinkable behavior (those mere victimless choices of consenting adults, in your eyes) which I outlined in my prior response.
Now, I would argue that it's a verifiable fact that all of these behaviors I listed have had as their natural outcome the harm of the family and the society at large. You obviously don't agree with that assessment. But regardless of what your or I believe about the moral character and/or destructive nature of those behaviors, it's a historical fact that they were all once the behaviors of an extreme minority which stood in opposition to the larger society which shunned and condemned those who practiced those behaviors. Nonetheless, in the blink of an eye, in historical terms, these behaviors have all become quite prevalent, acceptable, celebrated or, as in your case, do not illicit strong opposition in the public square. In sum, they are evidence of how minority behavior can quickly impact and change the society at large. That is precisely how damage will be done to straight marriage.
Just as it was difficult to conceive of 50 million plus abortions in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, it is hard to envision the scope of damage that lies before us today with gay marriage. That single court ruling serves as a warning. Led by Roe v. Wade, the rest of society was radically and quickly transformed. The courts, the schools, the government, and the culture followed suit. And now here are millions of dead unborn babies later.
The question is, why take such a risk with an institution that has been fundamental to civilized society for thousands of year?
If the traditional concept of marriage is not supported in by the courts then it's not long before it's not supported in schools, the government, or the culture at large. The common understanding of marriage will likely be reduced to that of being just another contractual arrangement among consenting adults. Mere contractual living arrangements among adults are useful, but hardly equivalent to the concept of foundational institution pon which society is built.
And what will happen to those who believe in traditional marriage? Well, when parents want to pass on to their children the value of traditional marriage, what chance of survival does such an value have to thrive when there is no support for it in the schools, the courts, the government, and the culture? Very little chance. Eventually, those who believe in traditional marriage will be reduced to a dwindling minority, the private practitioners of an archaic belief system. A new Amish--a moral curiosity to be photographed and patronized by the moderns from the outside world.
This case is about feelings.
Traditional marriage is a thought crime and thus the state of california deems parents who teach it as abusing their children.
If they state of california can say which feelings are allowed and not allowed (as compared to behavior and actions) then they can easily criminalize thought. (ie conservatives)
Nice post. See the first couple of links in post 189 for confirmation that you're 100% correct.
Would have been good to keep relgious marriage separate from politically sanctioned unions. By trying to establish Christian marriages in the State realm, it has opened the door for government to change the definition of marriage.