Before I agreed to dial up utter strangers at the phone bank to help garner support for Prop 102, I had to analyze the issue further. Although major proponents of this constitutional ammendment do include the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical and Jewish churches, I found that this issue doesn't necessarily boil down to religion vs. secularism.
Interestingly, even the secular/socially liberal French have published some incredibly strong arguments in favor of preserving traditional marriage (between one man and one woman), that have nothing to do with religion. These arguments are based almost exclusively on reproductive and societal pragmatism, given that the family is the basic unit of society. The vitriolic rhetoric (from both sides, I admit) during an election cycle is unbearable. I was reading the arguments for and against Prop 102 (which would "provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state"). One argument (against, perhaps?) stated that Prop 102 is "a pointless attempt by extreme right wing special interest groups to write hatred and bigotry into our state constitution." Once again, the hate card played because there are those who don't subscribe to The Church of Gavin Newsom.
I don't feel like a hateful bigot today. For voting to preserve marriage and the family unit as it has been since the beginning of time. Not since the 1950s. Not since the early 1700s. Not even since cavemen allegedly dragged their women into caves by the hair. But since the beginning of human history.
All that aside, I love this article that resonates with my personal religious beliefs on the divine institution of marriage. I do not want my children to grow up in a genderless society. It's been interesting to watch the silent majority of people wake from their former political apathy and get involved in this literally society-altering issue.