"Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights?"
Yes, and yours too. In general terms, every one has the right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who will accept him/her.
We have now established that you expect equal protection of the law.
"Do you believe in the protection of speech you do not approve of?"
It depends on the nature of the speech and the circumstances.
What nature of speech or context would not fall under the protection of free speech? If you are talking about yelling fire in a theater, we do not need to sidetrack here. If you are referring to another type of speech that should not be protected, please clarify.
"Can a culture show disapproval to certain types of speech (racism etc) without banning it?"
Yes, it can be disapproved but tolerated without legally banning it.
We have now established that you understand that the use of authority is unnecessary to disapprove of something culturally.
"Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?"
Because, as it stands now, we either institutionalize --meaning approve of-- a sexual perversion or not.
You did not answer my question. I asked why it is NECESSARY.
"Are you incapable of disapproving without legal obstruction?"
Yes; it's called toleration. We tolerate homosexual marriages as private ceremonies but disapprove of them as part of the current cultural institution.
Private ceremonies for gay marriages would be cultural institutions still. You're contradicting yourself.
"I believe you're attempting to assert that the issue of marriage hinges on some sort of definition of sexual perversion."
One of the issues. That's true.
You've yet to defend the assertion that homosexuality is (1) a sexual perversion, and (2) that if it was how the issue would hinge upon this.
"Any restriction on individual rights and liberties must demonstrate a compelling NECESSITY."
And who determines that compelling necessity?
In a legal sense, our government. They compose, enforce, and interpret the laws based on real needs.
In a cultural sense, each individual to themselves. You may find it very important for you to not marry another man, however you can't project that upon another individual.
"You've not justified how discussing sexual perversion is applicable to this topic."
I'm claiming that homosexuality is a sexual perversion and for that reason people don't consider it a proper basis for marriage.
What do you consider to be my error?
1) That legal obstruction of same sex marriages does not prohibit the establishment of cultural institutions, it only prohibits couples from obtaining a legal status.
2) That the majority has the right to impose regulation on minorities without establishing a compelling necessity.
We established that you expect equal protection of the law, but you have assumed a position contrary to your stated view on this.
We established that you can disapprove of idea/institution without banning it, and yet you choose to support the banning of same sex marriage. How do you pick and choose when to violate your stated value?
"You very much have the legal ability to get married regardless of approval of others, and your marriage (approved of or otherwise will retain all of the rights and privileges that come with it from the state."
I'm not sure who the "you" you're talking about is, but you seem to be saying that same sex couples can legally marry in California. Do you really consider that to be factually true? If so, how can you be shown to be mistaken?
I don't know if you're intentionally being difficult on this point, or if you just don't get it.
Jack and Jill get engaged.
Neither Jack's parents or Jill's parents approve of the engagement.
None of their friends approve of the engagement.
Strangers on the street see them, and do not approve of the engagement.
Does the disapproval of their relationship inhibit their legal ability to get married? Yes
If they get married will they have the same legal status (rights & privileges) as other married couples? Yes
Jack and Jill are sexual perverts. They like to **** in each others mouth. Daily.
Now you disapprove of Bert and Ernie getting married.
Why should your disapproval void Bert and Ernie's ability to legally marry while it doesn't void Jack and Jill's?
This is your ethical problem.