Gay marriage is now legal in California.

That was legal in UK age ago. But marriage will must be called "Civil Partnership"

The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case. It took less than six months for His prediction to become a reality. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.

"Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person?"

Sounds like you are either promoting polygamy or no marriage at all.

So, you support making people second class citizens? Because that's what gays are now.

Refresh my memory....Was this not legal once before in Cali only to be over turned like a few months later??? Is this just gonna be a yearly think in Cali like Earthquakes???

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had barely been on the job a month back in 2004 when he ordered the city to issue marriages licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Thousands of same-sex partners flocked to City Hall to exchange vows. For four weeks, a steady stream of ceremonies stretched into the night, and lines of eager couples wrapped around the block.

And as quickly as the couples could say, "I do," the scene of women marrying women and men marrying men sparked a nationwide uproar. Proponents called the move bold. Opponents called it defiant and blatantly illegal. People on both sides said Newsom had single-handedly cost Democrats the White House.

But after more than 4,000 same-sex marriage licenses (which ultimately were ruled invalid) and four years, the Republican majority on California's Supreme Court handed Newsom his vindication.

Your argument is faulty man. Let me guess you live in a back ass hick town and your "Daddy" raised you to hate gays, blacks ,basically anyone that doesn't share your beliefs? Am i getting through to ya?

So, you are against giving people rights?

Do you support inter-racial marriages?

But the bible says that it's ok, at least I saw a part where the father can give his daughter into slavery. Is that ok? The bible says so.

The bible says that raping a virgin is ok. Do you think so?

I support the traditions that have made America the best country in the world and I don't want the country to fall into a pit of moral decay. Interracial marriages are fine.