I am very disappointed myself by this, for I believe it goes against the American ethics of religious freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that all men (and women) are created equal.
I'll bring back a comparison I made before in a previous thread (Larry C's "You Can't Win Them All" thread) from Joseph Stein's "Fiddler On The Roof".
In "Fiddler On The Roof", in the small Jewish village of Anatevka in Russia, right around the turn of the century in 1905, the dairyman Tevye considers allowing one of his five daughters Tzietel to marry the local butcher Lazar Wolfe by matchmaking.
But the local tailor Motel has strong feelings for Tzeitel and then soon enough she begins to fall for him and they want to be married by their own free-will, and when first learning of this, they call this "love" unheard of and say things like "He's a radical!". After all, Tevye believes in God's law and providing balance to their community, and to continue living by this tradition, and without them he says their lives would be "as shaky as a fiddler on the roof"
Then the whole idea of choosing by free-will catches on, and another one of his daughters Chava ("Little Bird") falls for a Russian named Fyedka, and rumors circulate in town and then Tevye learns of this and refuses to offer his blessing, won't listen to her, said Chava is dead to him, perhaps because the Russians at the time where running pogroms against the Jews and forcing them out of their town and saw loving a Russian was bad blood, and attempts to forbid Chava from ever seeing him again.
But tradition is challenged all throughout the play, and his wife Golde begins to accept these changes to some degree, as do some of the village people.
That's kind of how I relate to this issue. I support the idea of gay marriage, because I am a firm believer in those ideals I listed above and feel banning gay marriage would treat gay and lesbian citizens as second-class citizens, deny them the absolute pursuit of happiness, deny them equality, run against the long-living notion of religious freedom here.
I've heard the number of benefits couples receive from marriage number to as much as 1,183 in some minds. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry would deny such rights entitled by marriage like health insurance, fair inheritance and the ability to make life-saving decisions to couples and families.
And even if you disagree with gay marriage, changing the constitution shouldn't be the way to settle this debate, when real people are affected in the process. Those disagreements shouldn't belong there. And you can say that gay and lesbian citizens could just obtain the rights by getting a legal contract. They're still costly, and do not guarantee all the basic rights given through marriage.
I was saddened to hear of Measure 36 passing here in Oregon 57-43, and in the months ahead protesting against this discrimination is one of the major things I'll be doing, to see to it our gays and lesbians are treated equally.
I feel just like in 1905, fifty years from now we may look back on this time in history and laugh. I can understand how in one time some sort of relation or marriage may seem strange or unheard of, but in time I think more and more may become used to it or accept it. It's been a natural trend through history.
"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20