i wonder in same sex marriages when they have kids.i can see it know.i met your parents a couple of nice guys.or mom and dad donna and alice.dad's name is alice.
Children are the exact reason that state sanctioned same sex marrige is being resisted by the state. Some might think it's out of concern for the wellbeing of the child but consider this point. In it's natural state, a same sex union is absolutely incapable of ever producing offspring. It either takes the intervention of science or a 3rd party of the opposite sex must come into play, no pun intended.
And it is that inability to re-produce, to multiply if you will that is at the heart of the problem. The State sanctions and encourages heterosexual sexual unions for 1 most important reason. It is via this union only that can re-produce new taxpayers, new workers, new citizens. Any action that takes away this more important act which could threaten the health of the State will not be tolerated. Acts of self gradification via self induced sexual stimulation were considered a threat to this process and those discouraged up to and including laws that forbade their practice.
Various chemical substances (drugs) were made illegal not out of concern for the individual user, but rather the threat potential that way to many people would turn on and tune out of state sanctioned society and the perverbal wheels of society would fall off and the self imposed leaders of society might have to get real jobs for a change!
Wikipedia has an interesting article on the marraige license and under the sections entitled "History" and "Controversy" will be found some very interested reading.
On the history section:
On the Controversy section:
Marriage for the most part in western culture was considered a private or religious matter for centuries and therefore local custom mostly dictated that policy. In 1753' England, the foot in the door came in the form of the Hardwicke Marriage Act which at that point forbabe the old common-law practice of marriage and granted state sanction only as the clear means. The US remained locked into the old common-law custom until the 1920's when 38 states adopted a marriage licensing process in an effort to stem a growing concern for inter-racial relationships. From there the genie so to speak was out of the bottle.
In 1996', the federal gov't passed the Defense of Marriage Act and lot of that on the surface was political postering in an election year. Underneath and not spoken of was the growing statisical evidence that the core US population was in fact in decline and that birthrates statistics showed an alarming future to a gov't that was heavily in debt and dependant upon having a supply of future taxpayers. If you take away both legal and illegal immigration over the last 30 years, the US population would have declined in number and signs showed the trend would continue in years ahead so something had to be done via the central planners to encourage a reversal of fortunes. Not enough obviously and therefore we have the current immigration picture to make up the economic shortfall for our own lack of birthrate. It should be noted that across western Europe the same trends are happening as well and mass migrations from Africa and the Mideast are taking place to maintain the population levels.
Homosexual persons complain that heterosexual persons in marriage get special priviledge and they do because of the afore mentioned reason. Instead of fighting to join the gov't cheese line (tax deduction) why not amass their political power behind ending all tax deductions in the form of eliminating the entire income tax system. Instead of demanding gov't action upon employers to force inclusion in insurance plans, why not fight to end the practice established during the wage freeze years of FDR's depression policy of employer provided health insurance and make the entire healthcare market an open free market once again and let competition and market demand drive the day and drive down prices as well. People can still form private co-ops to purchase insurance if they so choose but leave that to the individual. It also frees the employee even further from the employer which is also a healthy thing IMO. Instead of joining gov't priviledge, why not expend that energy to end gov't being in all those areas in the first place!
As for California or any other community setting local standards, I'm not for any collective body telling me or anyone else how to live when there is no crime in the form of force or fraud committed on another human being but I'm not going to sit here in my home 1000's of miles from California and demand the courts or US gov't to tell those folks how to live because I don't want them to turn around in the form of payback and do it to me!
I also understand that we live in a mobocracy (extreme democracy) and that if I being a part of the majority today impose my will on the minority and set the legal precedence that one day I or my heirs may find themselves in a minority and my very actions may come back to haunt me or my children. The sins of the fathers will visit upon them to the 7th generation so to speak and historically I've found much truth in that old biblical precept!
JMO on this matter!
Did you ever once consider that when Morpheus told Neo that he was a battery that in fact Morpheus was really talking about all of us!