Subject: Civil Rights are not favored only by a "small vocal minority".
I understand that the San Jose Human Rights Commission refused to consider taking a position against the appalling anti-gay initiative that may be on the ballot in November, and that Vice-Chair of the Commission, Robert Bailey, stated he doesn't "think this commission should be spending its time on an issue like this for the benefit of a small vocal minority." I am not a gay American, but I am firmly in favor of eliminating the discrimination faced by my gay friends. What is the point of having a Human Rights Commission if it will not stand up for the civil rights of its constituents?
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to make marriage an entirely personal or religious matter, by re-naming the rights granted by the State (while still recognizing the union as marriage for federal purposes, until/unless federal law catches up). Let everyone have civil unions, and then go get married in whatever setting, and in front of whatever community, they find suitable. That would make clear that we have no intention of stopping churches that object to homosexuality from being as bigoted as they please; we simply expect them to keep their dogmatic stupidity out of our legal system.
In a generation, we will look back on those who stood against, or even refused to stand up _for_, the rights of our gay brothers and sisters, with the same disgust that we now regard those who opposed or ignored the rights of interracial couples. The exact same arguments as were used 40-50 years ago are being deployed again now, and they are just as vile now as they were then.
California was an early state to legalize interracial marriage. We should be proud to be an early state to legalize gender-neutral marriage.
(my full name, address, title)