Image from source, Raw Story
Now, this is an interesting question. During the election, if you asked a proponent of California's Proposition 8 (the measure to revoke legal same-sex marriage) what their goal was, they would say, "to protect marriage." Or to "restore marriage." But they would have denied that they were anti-gay, that they hated gay people, or that they meant them any harm.
Then, after the thing passed, they went after the already existing same-sex marriages. Why? Certainly not to restore or protect marriage, since no more gay people can legally marry there. Just because they think they can. And a reasonable question to ask, after their victory, is what will they want next?
"Yes on Prop 8" supporters were almost exclusively religious, and couch their "pro-marriage" arguments in religious terms. Most of the money that went into that side of the campaign was drummed up in churches and religious organizations. But in the United States, we are not supposed to enact laws that are based on religious arguments. There are still many "blue laws" on the books of course, laws surely rooted in piety. But most are poked fun of today. Maybe not for much longer.
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law
The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny. . .
Read more at: Raw Story