"What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of marriage. This claim is irreconcilable with themajority’s declaration that “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.”

your misreading of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

Also, I find the argument that polygamy and group marriage will be permitted if same-sex marriage is permitted to be offensive. Despite the claims that this issue is different from the prohibition of interracial marriage, I fail to see the difference; gay couples are kept inferior to straight couples, as though their partnership, however loving and committed (for example, couples who have been together upwards of twenty years) is not valid simply because they are different.

Finally, I would like to ask the question: if something similar to marriage were allowed for same-sex couples, with all of the same benefits as marriage (including the ability to adopt a child as a couple), but it were called something else, would this organization and its supporters have a problem with that?

"Doctors who provide reproductive services will be compelled to provide service to Homosexual couples."

Wait.....what?

How can a homosexual couple REPRODUCE?

"Gay" marriage is only a negative issue if you want it to be. Shut up, and things will be just fine.

However, if the definition of marriage is changed to allow same sex couples, there is no basis to exclude anyone. The door to polygamy and group marriage will swing wide open.

Straight people have done a fine job weakening marriage. You can't argue, fundie, that opening marriage to gay people will result in the demise of an institution that straight people have been screwing up for a while. Children are not a requirement for a marriage certificate, neither is proof of fertility or the possibility of procreating.

Gays are not a social class of people they are in every class and level of society.

But to address your main point, legal Same Sex Marriage will radically shift the law and society. Same Sex Marriage will be taught in schools, and parents who disagree will have no grounds to object. Religous schools that do not embrace Same Sex Marriage, will lose tax exemptions and grants. Doctors who provide reproductive services will be compelled to provide service to Homosexual couples. I don't think this shift is disputed. Gays love it. Religious folks hate it.

But beyond even the immediate legal and social changes, I think there would be profound demographic impacts that could threaten civilization. Marriage rates will drop, and Fertility rates will implode. The few kids that are born will be in single parent/unmarried parent homes. Gay Marriage might just be another symptom of Modern fragmentation, but I do think it will greatly accelerate trends that are well underway. I could be wrong, but only time - a long time - will tell.

You know, there were many at the beginning of the sexual revolution who preached that there were no consequences to divorce either. Zero. Zilch. Here we are 40 years later, and now we know. Can we go back? Sure, but it's a long road back from here. What about the two or three generations since that time that have deteriorated because of the selfish needs and philosophical whims of the morally "liberated"? Are they just more casualties of the culture war?