I don't begrudge gay people (who even in a mean country like America teeming with homophobes) have found increasing acceptance from taking the next step and seeking legally recognized marriage as it's not without it's merits. But I do resent how it's being done (through judicial activism rather than democratic means, denigrating religious morals and slandering same-sex marriage opponents as modern-day Bull Connors.)
That's me on 9/27 earlier in this thread and sure enough, on 10/9 from irvine we get
the state of california forcibly eradicating hundreds of thousands of marriages would be the equivalent of Bull Connor turning the fire hoses and dogs on civil rights activists.
which is insulting both to the citizens of Californian and the victims of racial segregation in this country's history. Not to mention just plain wrong. In the California decision it was noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." In other words, equal protection. That's your fallback position. Did blacks in Birmingham have anything approaching equal protection or equal rights under the law in 1963?
And now another state (Connecticut, the 3rd) has seen their state Supreme Court (by a 1 vote margin for the 3rd time) strike down their state's marriage laws. Not only had Connecticut's legislature not recognized same-sex marriage when it instituted civil unions just a few years earlier but the state's governor, Jodi Rell, said she personally disagreed with the decision and further stated “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut." So, if the people and their elected officials oppose same-sex marriage then how did it become law?
Well, it was imposed upon them. Writing for the majority, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote “...our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.” Robert D. McFadden in the NY Times actually called this "language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century."
Excuse me, pardon me, but shouldn't the realm of judges be, you know, confined to the "legal landscape"? Is that really too much to expect? Apparently so, because
four judges have just told the legislature, the governor, the people Connecticut and their combined laws, traditions and moral systems to... take a hike... piss off. That they, and they alone, possess "contemporary appreciation" of rights. That they, and they alone, understand the definition of marriage. And that they, and they alone will decide the timetable to advance "social justice for a new century."
If you believe:
-- Gays living under civil unions laws to be the equivalent of blacks living under Jim Crow laws.
-- Judges should empathize from the bench rather than limit themselves to the law.
-- Autocracy a better form of government than constitutional democracy.
Than Friday was a really good day for you.
) Why should they be scapegoated so that the rest of us can continue running our families in ways that suit our unique circumstances and our gifts as individuals, yet be given a pass for it because the sex composition of our households passes muster? If it weren't so stomach-turningly degrading, it would be downright funny. 
You don't even see it, do you.
