Really? Why do you think it says “Nothing at all”? Until the point interracial marriage was legalized, and even long after, people made exactly the same arguments you’re making. I think that alone says something, most likely different things to different people. Can you explain why you think it’s a strawman argument?
How, do you imagine, same-sex marriage might “take more of” your money?
Yup, reality served up to you nicely.
Why do you think it says “Nothing at all”?
The answer to that is self evident. That it isn't evident to you is your problem but I'll do my best to paint you a bright picture.
Until the point interracial marriage was legalized, and even long after, people made exactly the same arguments you’re making.
False. My argument is that denying a man and a woman the a marriage license was wrong because marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman in America. Utah was denied access to the union until they made polygamy unlawful.
I think that alone says something, most likely different things to different people.
No it says absolutely nothing. There is nothing in either US or California law that recognizes marriage between the same sexes. Ever. This isn't really hard. One woman + one man /= one man + one man.
Can you explain why you think it’s a strawman argument?
Certainly, the two do not equate. See the math above.
How, do you imagine, same-sex marriage might “take more of” your money?
I didn't say it would. I said that non traditional families take money out of my pocket, specifically those without fathers. Do you deny this is so?
California could, if they like, through the democratic process give homosexual couples all the rights and privileges of traditional married couples. Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to change the meaning of marriage in my opinion but nothing in the law would stop them from doing that if they so please. But they didn't please, 4 egomanical judges did.