“Thanks for your help, my friend. I requested leave from work to volunteer at my local polling station. I was there from 7am until 8pm and spoke to about 95% of the people who came to vote. I'm neither gay nor married, but I realize that I am granted certain civil rights that gay folks have not traditionally been afforded.
If there truly is a *need* to endorse committed relationships with taxpayer money, the laws need to be inclusive of all committed relationships, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. I don't think that need exists, but that's how the system has functioned up to this point.
Religious communities should be unconditionally free to decide which couples are to be granted a congregation's approval. Those religious communities should *not* have a say in government affairs, and the government should *not* have a say in the affairs of those religious communities. But many people mistake the term "marriage licence" (legal) for the term "marriage" (religious).
If is gives you any solace, I found most of the older voters (65+) to be bitter and angry with me when I asked them to consider voting yes on question 6. Most of the younger voters (under 40) ranged from ambivalent to emphatic about this issue... and the oldsters won't outlive the youngsters.”