The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

I want to thank my mother and god and the great state of texas for making all this (holding up trophy and an abu ghraib lightstick) possible.

And I will lay the blame for that on precisely the same three.

...The Goal

As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the "gay agenda." At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are "equal." If it feels good, do it.

Ultimately, the homosexual lobby's primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God's natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

This creates cultural and moral anarchy...

A narrower gay-nuptial ban may go to AZ voters
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.12.2008

PHOENIX - Unable to persuade voters to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic-partner benefits in 2006, proponents are reloading and taking aim at a smaller target.
A proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, filed Monday by Senate President Tim Bee, seeks to ask voters to spell out in the constitution that "only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state." Bee, R-Tucson, managed to get 15 of the 16 other GOP senators to sign on as sponsors...

...A 1996 Arizona law already bars same-sex marriages. That statute was ruled constitutional in 2003 by the state Court of Appeals, a decision the Arizona Supreme Court left untouched.
But Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the Arizona Catholic Conference, said the initiative still is necessary.
"At some point, a court (or) the Legislature could overturn our statute," Johnson said. "So we want to let the people decide whether to put this in the constitution."

High schooler spars with Rove over gay marriage.

During his controversial speech at New England prep school Choate Rosemary Hall yesterday, former Bush adviser Karl Rove was challenged by a student "to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people." Rove dodged answering her at first, saying that the issue "should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court." But the student, Choate senior Marla Spivack, continued to press him:

Spivack kept pressing. "You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?" she asked.

Rove asked, what's the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?

What, Spivack countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.

Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seemed to support her claims.

Eventually, Rove wiggled out of the debate by asking Spivack "when she planned to run for political office."

http://thinkprogress.org/page/2/

(and the right to marry is a fundamental right)

There are rational reasons to disallow couplings or marriage between family members.

'Rational' to you perhaps.

What care those in love what you consider 'rational' or no?

Why should your conception of what is or isn't 'rational' hinder those lovebirds?

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

Also supporting the move was Rep. Marian McClure, a Tucson Republican, who said she thought a constitutional amendment was unnecessary because same-sex marriage already is banned by state statute. But ultimately she voted for sending it to the ballot because of her personal religious briefs.
"If I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, how do I go into church next Sunday and try to explain to my pastor and to my Christian community that I voted saying that marriage was not between a man and a woman?" she said. "The average individual looks at the bill number and the title. What do they see? Marriage between one man and one woman."

Well Ms McClure, you simply could have told your pastor that constitutional amendments are for protecting rights not limiting them.