About a year ago, somebody asked:
I enjoyed reading the post but am confused by your response to Snacks stating that you support mature, responsible gay relationships but because the motivation for gay marriage is not purely protection of the minority you are against gay marriage. My question to you is why should the motivation be solely focused on protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? Why can't the fight for gay marriage be a self interested desire to benefit equally from legal protections and tax breaks that accrue to "married" people. Legalizing marriage for same sex couple does not require religious institutions to shift their doctrine or play any role whatsoever in the process. The societal change that will occur as a result of widespread access to same sex marriage is the realization by prior antagonists that gay marriage has no impact on their lives. This is the reality in MA and there is no reason to assume otherwise for the rest of the nation. Proposition 8 and others like it demonstrate that basic human and civil rights should never be put to a referendum.
Prop Eight passed, and as far as I can tell, nobody has been talking much about it recently. When it passed, the reaction by protesters was hostility directed against the LDS Church, which was portrayed as engineering a conspiracy.
The direct answer to the question is that protection of a minority does not require 'societal change that will occur as a result of widespread access to same sex marriage', but this is the honest statement of impetus for a redefinition of marriage. Of course those opposed to gay marriage recognize that there is an impact. The only way for there to be no impact is for there to be no change in the law. That, of course, does not preclude homosexuals to engage in 'defacto marriage', but it does restrain them from the privileges and immunities of Marriage proper. The 'defacto marriage' can and still should be recognized by law as a civil union.
My opposition is satisfied by the passage of Eight and what I take to be the reconsideration of advocates for the gay cause that the sky hasn't fallen, nor have any individuals lost standing in the courts to address human rights or civil rights violations. Of course gay marriage activism was social engineering masquerading as a defense of civil rights under the abused heading of 'equality'. The self-righteous demand for those privileges and immunities of Marriage has been met with a humiliating beatdown at the polls, but little more than that and an end-zone dance. Perhaps the shouting is over, and that's a good thing.