That's why I don't think all people who oppose same-sex marriage can be described as anti-gay. Some are, I'm sure. And at best, they are indifferent to the rights of gay people in the pursuit of an agenda to perpetuate gender role differentiation. Consider: Another (equally contentious unfortunately) issue is affected by the same dilemma. The corollary to a woman's unilateral “choice” to be a stay-at-home mother, for instance, is a man's obligation to be “the breadwinner.” Some people believe stay-at-home dads are “unnatural.” Try to extend those kinds of role assignments to same-sex couples, and you can't do it! At best, one member of the couple is off-role.

I think that's what some people mean when they say the family will be “destabilized.” (I don't agree with this; I do think it has to do with other concerns than homosexuality.)

Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?

If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?

Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!

So, DLS, just what level of discrimination do find acceptable?

I'm surprised that activists haven't tried using “conventional” instead to be more precise about what they're seeking, but they probably discarded that as demeaning than “traditional” in what it implies about what they want. (Both terms apply correctly to how marriage is commonly and almost universally understood to be defined.) The “traditional” or “conventional” male-female formal arrangement that is marriage may have sex roles changed since 1965 (an adjunct to the abilities and concepts of personhood open for decades now to women that they didn't have before) but the male-female arrangement remains clear to this day. It is superficial to make an analogy to multi-religious and multi-racial relationships the way activists commonly structure their latest attempts at changing (yes, that is changing) the fundamental definition of marriage (i.e., on an older civil rights movement model).

And no, I'm not saying it's not acceptable for gays to be uncomfortable to the point where (as my friend in DC put it) one can't confortably put his or her partner's photo on their desk at work, for example.

Then again, my mother hit the freakin' roof when I brought a girlfriend I was getting kind of serious about home to meet the family. She was bright, outgoing, attractive, and Catholic. She was also black. That was a problem. It seems so silly now.

Anyway, what's firm again?