Every single state where homosexual marriage is legal, it has been imposed by the court system upon the populace of that state. That says much about the popularity of the position. Where are the voices of the citizen in this debate? Apparently they do not count, for the values they have enshrined in their own laws are trampled underfoot by the tyrants wearing judicial robes. This has now happened in Florida, where we had amended the constitution of the state to define marriage (see the Florida Consitution here). Despite that, a circuit judge has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and struck down our constitution.
This ruling rests upon a secular and blind understanding of marriage. If marriage does not itself define a union of man and woman, then why are terms such as “group marriage” or “homosexual marriage” even needed? Considering history and word origin, it is plain what the term marriage means; only some now wish it to mean something else. That some judges and some part of the population wishes marriage to mean something besides what it means serves their interests, but not the interests of the people at large. What I mean is this — if population fragments can redefine language, then the concept of the term is devalued, both in meaning and in practice. We can see this in advertising, as when a brand name becomes a generic name. How happy is Xerox or Hoover about such things? Their names have lost their force and distinctiveness. So also American; so also, marriage.
On a deeper level, homosexuals want to obtain acceptance from society at large at all costs. This is why coming out is a psuedo-religious ceremony of acceptance; this is why they too, want to be married. They are craving the respectability that such a status provides, and that is being quite charitable. Most homosexuals have no interest in marrying at all, but willingly support the creation of “homosexual marriage” as a battering ram to the cultural edifice of Christianity, in all of its influence. Think of it like this: if you can take away something distinctive of your enemy, that is a victory. If you can lay claim to something he only has and then imitate it, you cannot do so without in some way mocking it, and dancing before him. “Homosexual marriage” is like a mosque, a cultural victory icon built to establish a beachhead and to insult enemies.
More broadly, there is no cultural need for homosexual marriage; no-one is being oppressed; no-one is being injured. All of the issues cited by advocates for this finger in the eye can be handled through other means. Inheritance? Draw up your will. Visitation? Specify who can visit you when you are admitted or draw up an advance directive. What are the real reasons here, besides the hatred of Christianity and all of its penumbras? Money. Homosexuals want to be covered as spouses, so as to defray the expense incurred by their lifestyle; this is another way to escape the consequences of a typical homosexual life that involves many sexual partners even throughout “marriage” (that most “homosexual marriages” are open is no big secret). In short, immature people want public acceptance and others to bail them out of the damage they brought upon their own heads.
And so homosexuals (fomented by the ACLU) cement their status as another charity case, another group of useful tokens for the Left to move about on a chessboard, feeling self-righteous about being the mercy kings atop a sinking ship; they are throwing the caviar to the stowaways. And like all other things the Left promulgates, “homosexual marriage” helps not those afflicted with same-sex disorder; it merely enslaves them to their vice.