As so many have stated over the last few years (and even in this thread), that this is akin to the civil rights movement. That this entire debate is about giving equal rights to equal people. As I said...marriage isn't a right. Socioeconomic and legal benefits are not rights. What about me? I am single, but my brother lives with me? Why can't we have those same tax breaks?

You mentioned race and gender as being factors upon which people are differentiated. Those are factors which they can neither control nor have a choice over. Sexual preference, much as you stated, is just that....a preference. There is no proven genetic component which triggers homosexual behavior. On the contrary, it seems to be much more of a nurture component which changes the debate completely.

Ultimately, I think that the debate actually centers around the thought that society, by and large, should consider a homosexual partnership as valid and normal. There is a majority of people in California who disagree (for whatever reason). This isn't about rights, as none of us has a right to get married. This isn't so much about money or benefits, as none of us has a right to those either. There are all sorts of provisions in government which state "if you are in this situation, you get this benefit". If you don't qualify, you don't get it. Instead, this entire debate (in my thinking anyway) is about one aspect of American culture saying "this lifestyle is as normal as yours and you will accept that."

There are many who would think "No it isn't, and no I won't." Who are you, or more specifically a judge, to force someone to accept their opinion as fact? Again...this isn't about race or gender...its about an individual's conscious decision on who to love.

~Jeordam