...but I think I have an idea on why it may have passed, and why people with similar views to mine may have said 'yes.'
Let's forget the slanderous ads that we all heard and actually look at the issue. Obviously this is an equal rights issue; I would hope that any other logical individual could recognize that. And obviously, homosexual couples deserve the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. Tax advantages, inheritance and other estate benefits, child adoption, familial status for visitation purposes, etc....even the economic pain and suffering inherent in divorce. This is all a given, I'm sure, even for some people that said 'yes.' But I couldn't vote that way because eliminating unions between homosexual couples sets them back further than if those judges had just let things be. I can only imagine the subsequent legal challenges brought forward to further reduce gay rights, and that's just not okay. Adopting the simple mantra of 'live and let live' would be consistent with how I look at it. And why the hell not!?!
However, there is a truly inherent and biologic difference between hetero and homosexual 'life couples.' It is the instinctual defense of this difference that is so personal that makes it hard for most people to vocalize it....and also may have caused them to say 'yes.'
This biologic difference is that of a biological bond that a heterosexual couple can form that a homosexual couple cannot form, no matter how hard they try. It's not about rights, it's about science. And not even all heterosexual couples can form this bond....I have family that can't, and you probably do, too. That bond is the ability to procreate.
A homosexual couple cannot have offspring that has purely half of each of their DNA in it. That is something that is unique to most heterosexual couples. See, this isn't even a gay issue when you really think about it. It could have been decided by the people that got defensive and really were just saying, "hey, I have a kid that my husband/wife and I made. Can you two do that? I think not!' And surely any homosexual couple would have to concede that point. So what does this have to do with marriage?
Marriage is just so deeply rooted in religion that it's practically a religious word. Surely matrimony is a religious word, it is a sacrament after all. Most religions passively associate procreation with the matrimonial union by discouraging sex before marriage. We all know how often that's heeded in today's society, but it is still an ideal the deeply religious aspire to.
So, perhaps it's understandable that religiously inclined Californians, the land of 26 Spanish Catholic Missions and a highly Catholic Hispanic population, got a bit skiddish with homosexual couples adopting the same title of 'Marriage, Married, etc.' Perhaps these religiously inclined are fearful that their special bond, that bond which includes the ability to procreate, will no longer be recognized.
I guess if someone were to come up with a new, cooler, better name for matrimony and marriage, then religiously inclined folks everywhere could start using that name instead, and the civil courts (because I hope nobody thinks that they're going to force a Bible Belt Baptist to marry a gay couple. Live and let live, remember?) could issue Marriage Certificates.
I have a revolutionary idea, though. How about we give everybody blanketed equal rights under the law like the United States of America and the Great State of California are supposed to, and just call homosexual unions 'civil unions' (or a name they'd like to make up, if they'd prefer), and let's continue recognizing the biological distinction that the word Marriage passively recognizes. After all, that's how the government is able to get around the 'separation of Church and State' argument when issuing marriage licenses. Marriage has been a religious institution longer than a civil one.
What is so wrong with that idea? Huh? Why is that not good enough!?! And why is that too much!?! Live and let live, people!!!
