Well, I was hoping to draw some scenarios, to show 'cause and effect'. I chose one for each person, with NO value judgments, to establish a common ground, that should be easy to follow, and easy for any, and everyone to relate to. I figured there might be a little nit picking, but I thought it would be self evident, that doing that would be ridiculous. So, to address the nit pickers, and address the valid questions, here we go..

Jeri: "Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods."

With a post like that, you probably can be expecting another period,..within 72 hours!

Don: "Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general."

Yes, or possibly immolate him, depending on what he has created about him, in his mind. He will, however, have questions as to his own worth, if he feels his love for his father, is unrequited. That could turn to bitterness toward his father, if left unresolved. I could expound, but let's go on. If you want more on that, I'll be happy to do so.

Guest: "143 commas
105 periods
855 words "

How many grooves were on The Beatles 'Abbey Road' LP? when you get done counting them, you might enjoy listening to it, too! Never mind, I'll save you the trouble, there is one.

John P: "GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California."

John, Oh dear John, I'm going to cut and paste something for you, to make your life easier.."Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban". That is the topic of this thread. Perhaps you meant to be in the "Pros and cons of conflict resolution thread"
Pay attention.

Amos, Your post was a BIG BINGO! The case is NOT being argued, on the merits of race, creed or color...Because if they argued it on the 'genetics' issue, it would fail immediately!! (Did somebody say that in here, before?) It is, as you stated, going to be under the 'protection' clause...Which can be argued, by those determinations of CHOICE! (Shit, didn't that get mentioned in here too?...somewhere in the previous posts).
So, Amos, in your penchant for 'cut and paste', ..'you done good'!

Now there was a part of a post, before I was going to address..hold on, I'll get it....(tippy toe..tippy toe)...ok, back..

John P:"As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better."

Okay, let's rephrase that question, to read the other way around, and you will see the crux of the merits of the case...

"As soon as someone says that STRAIGHT folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose MARRIED lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better."

That IS the controversy..both sides....CAUSE AND EFFECT.

So, in keeping of NOT telling you WHAT to THINK, but HOW to think, think about this openly and freely in your minds, because one side feels 'oppressed' and the other feels 'threatened'...and vice versa. If you promote EITHER side, with false data reports, to back your argument, you will lose!..unless there is a bias, in the court...in that case, who knows?

Note: The one vote that did uphold the ban, came from a Democrat! (scratches head)

So, in closing, the civil rights, will be determined by equality, due to citizenship, NOT by any other factor, so get over it! Use the last analogy, posted by JohnP, and my re-write together,..and think about it.
See ya'!