Vote to Protect Marriage
This is not an issue over rights, for those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle still have the freedom to do anything other Americans are allowed.
Marriage, though, in the most secular sense, is a man and woman coming together in a union that has the expectation for procreation. We cannot speak of the rights of homosexual unions that are deemed "marriage," as there is not a working definition of marriage that could apply to homosexuals.
"Two people who love each other" doesn't cut it as a new definition. If we depart from the traditional understanding of marriage, there is no reason why it can't be "three people who love each other," "a group of people who love one another," or "a man and his horse who love each other." I suppose a few progressives out there find nothing wrong with such marriages, but anyone with a modicum of study in societal and historical trends know this leads to the inevitable breakdown of order in a culture.
Part of the cause of this is the growing acceptance such measures would gain in successive generations. If we depart from the traditional understanding of marriage, there is no reason for schools to continue to present the traditional view. Why present marriage as a union between a man and woman when the state allows other kinds of "marriage?" Indeed, we would even expect schools to be under mandate to teach tolerance and acceptance of these new state-sanctioned unions.
And, surprise, surprise... that is what we find in Massachusetts today.
California, you voted before to keep traditional marriage, and a few judicial activists overstepped their bounds while ignoring your voice. Now, make it clear: marriage is between one man and one woman. Vote Yes on 8.
Floridians, ditto---vote Yes on 2.