With the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn millions of votes in support of banning gay marriage on May 15, 2008, a firestorm and fervor erupted with those on various sides of the issue.

I have heard the littany of arguments, excuses, justifications, rationalizations, and other minutiae that don't really address the core of the issue. That is because most of the arguments you hear are wrapped in emotionalism along with those wrapped in it like an overly tight sleeping bag. Hardly anybody stands back and looks at this objectively.

I will start by saying that I am a heterosexual male, never married, with no children and not religious, although I do believe in god. I believe god and religion are two separate entities. I believe god is god, and religion is nothing more than man's interpretation of what god is and what god wants. With that being stated, I am against gay marriage for the following reasons.

First, marriage is primarily about the family structure and the procreation of the species. It's also about the foundation of any society which is the family unit. Without it, society would be in chaos or may not even exist. It's been that way for every society throughout human history. Incidently, homosexuals are incapable of breeding naturally. I don't count artificial insemination or adoption as part of normal family development in this situation. I am talking about viviparous reproduction.

Second, the voters in several states, within the last ten years, have said no to gay marriage and by rather substantial margins no less, including liberal California. In this instance, it is the will of the people that rules. If the people say no, the court's need to respect that. Otherwise we have a commissar system like that of Soviet Russia where a few decide for the many all too often and you no longer live in a democracy, but a dictatorship by another form. Incidently, courts have wrongfully overturned voter initiatives banning benefits for illegal immigrants. Those initiatives also passed by wide margins. Also, it is Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. He is a very liberal politician, along with many Democrats in the House and Senate at that time.

Third, civil unions already exist to provide the homosexual community with many of the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples. The term "Marriage" is unnecessary here anyway. The homosexual community has already been granted more rights and entitlements in the United States of America than in any other society or country throughout history by a rather large margin. At some point it has to stop.

Fourth, marriage, like driving, is a privilege, not a right. One has the opportunity to get married, but you do not have the right to get married. It is a privilege to have a girlfriend/boyfriend or a husband/wife. No one has a right to these things. I don't have the right to snatch Alyssa Milano as my girlfriend just because I think she should be my girlfriend.

Fifth, many in the homosexual community believe that marriage is totally unnecessary for them. Incidently, I think there are more saying that than is being reported. I have heard this said on various radio shows and read about it in various publications. The conventional wisdom stated is, why do we want something that is heterosexual in nature when we want to differentiate ourselves because of our lifestyle? Also, when certain individuals in the homosexual community assign labels of breeder, opposite sex partners or any other incendiary labeling and name calling, they only diminish their cause and perpetuate stereotypes they are trying to overcome and eradicate. These individuals only take away support for gay marriage advocates by making them look like lunatics and extremists bent on mocking heterosexuals and their lifestyle. These types are the far left extremists that are analagous to far right extremists, just in a different form. One cannot expect to be taken seriously if you mock someone else's lifestyle if you are trying to get them to support yours.

I have intentionally left out any civil rights comparisons regarding race and ethnicity because I believe it is comparing apples to oranges, to quote a phrase. It is definitely wrong to cast judgment or dispersions about people simply because their skin pigment is darker or lighter than yours. Whereas, the gay marriage issue is rooted in religion, procreation, and natural outcomes of biology.

All discrimination is wrong, but the denial of the term marriage in no way detracts from quality of life, personal happiness, or precludes you from pursuing a lifestyle. If one is seeking happiness via marriage, or just the term, than you are looking in the wrong place for your happiness. Marriage does not bring happiness to oneself. That must be attained before making the choice to get married. Marriage is the result of attained happiness, not the precursor. As such, one should not pursue their happiness and disposition via terminology, but through one's peace of mind that the act of or the term marriage is not required to live a full and happy life, heterosexual or homosexual.

It seems to me that all sides of the issue are making a bigger deal out of this than needs to be, that all have an axe to grind, and that this is distracting all of us Americans from more important and pressing issues of our time.

Alan Waldron

By the way, within this hub, did you notice any specific religious support? I left it out to prove my point even further.