Just shows the thug government for what it is, a brute beast forcing people to embrace whatever lie it deems "truth". No surprise, as it acts as if people can switch from being male to female or female to male and by golly, we are all supposed to BELIEVE A LIE or else we are haters.
I am probably just not understanding your argument here so please excuse me if I am way off base. I am sensing an inconsistency of sorts.
If such things as homosexual marriage and "sex-change" are indeed "fake" or "lies" or are untrue or not real, then there would appear to be no need to deal with them at all. There is no need to address things that don't exist.
However, if what you really mean by those terms is that you disagree with things (homosexual marriage, "sex-change") that you acknowledge do exist, then I would suggest that you dispense with those terms (fake, lies, etc.) because I think the use of those terms merely makes your position less coherent.
In other words, if you are saying what I think you are saying, you could put it as follows: "The government has begun using the term 'marriage' in an overly broad fashion, a fashion which would encompass a legal union between two persons of the same sex. I believe that usage amounts to a perversion of the term marriage, a term which necessarily includes only legal unions between two persons of opposite sexes."
I understand why you want to use the terms "lie" and "fake" (all attacks are based upon negative associations), but I think the term "perversion" will be just as effective for your purpose.
But, again, I may be completely missing what you're attempting to do here. If so, I apologize for having wasted your time.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal conjugal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
In several States citizens have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws. Instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
The advocates of this novel definition have not been deprived of any right.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State.
This novel definition has been imposed upon Society by small number of persons who abuse the power vested in their Office and exert that power beyond their authority.
Unelected persons beyond control of the People imposing novelties upon Society is tyranny and contrary to the fundamental principles of this country.
Judges are not Legislators. For judges to impose upon society a novel definition, to aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain Legislatively is tyrannical and beyond the authority of their Office. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored.
The obnoxious and unbridled arrogance of the Judicial branch of the Federal government must be checked by the States.
If there is not a cloud in the sky and the sun is shining, I wouldn't need to state that as a matter of opinion. I would have no need to frame it as, "I *believe* that there is not a cloud in the sky and that the sun is shining", even though I would be stating my belief. Reality is what it is.
It is disturbing that the definition of marriage (man and woman) is being framed as a religious belief, which has a connotation of being merely a deeply-held opinion or conviction, but not necessarily the truth.
Radicalize and demonize the opinion, and the believers of said "opinion" can be banished from the public square or worse. The radical opinion (truth) can be run out of town on a rail, pushed by the momentum of a mob of consensus worshipers.
If such things as homosexual marriage and "sex-change" are indeed "fake" or "lies" or are untrue or not real, then there would appear to be no need to deal with them at all. There is no need to address things that don't exist.
In a sane world, that's how it worked. When I was growing up there was no crazy talk about homo marriages or transgenders. But for those who need to create something out of nothing, such as rights that don't exist, they pull stunts like this: