Civil unions ain't enough for Bay Area queers

Living are we in a day and age where marriage between men and women is considered "controversial" or so enough San Francisco folk think to impress the nonsense on California's Supreme Court which will rule on it this morning.

At question is the constitutionality of amendment Proposition 22 which unambiguously explains

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Relativists pretended stupidity and asked for a clear definition and, to their chagrin, got one. With this common sense made redundant every non-idiot understood what premised a marriage, namely one male and one female. NOT one man and three to a few women, nor one man and a female minor, nor one female and a male minor, nor a man with another man, nor two dykes.

But the latter group, considered by some to be God's mistakes, feel left out or, to use the more litigious term, discriminated against.

While still shocking, it is by now common awareness that same-sex couples do openly exist; and that said couples are granted many rights associated with opposite-sex couples including hospital visitations, company benefits for family and spouse, and, horrifically enough, even child adoption (since Nature prevents men from impregnating other men no matter how much they profess love and devotion).

Supporters of gay rights applauded the creation and recognition of civil unions. Now those same people complain that civil unions amount to nothing. They demand to be married. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

San Francisco chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart told reporters, "If the state says that this is a marriage, it may be that some other states would not recognize it, but it would be sending the message that California considers its lesbian and gay couples equal."

From here the slippery, sloppy, sodomitic slope continues. No sooner than California gives homosexuals the green light to claim normalcy, they'll zip over to Utah, Indiana, Nevada, Washington, etc. to open up an organic tea shop or pet boutique or gay retail store or gay hardware store---as a married couple. Why leave California? For the sole purpose of agitating change in non-gay communities. Liberals like to classify this heterophobia as furthering "diversity" and "dialogue".

The several hundreds of homosexual couples who co-habitate and do everything else together will be no less in love or happy with themselves if the Supreme Court upholds common sense and tradition---or will they? I've long believed against casually applying 'gay' to this group of people on the argument that it is a misnomer and that these so-called gay people aren't as happy with life and themselves as they are festive, flamboyant, dramatic ad nauseam.

Residents of San Francisco are really arguing---whining---for acceptance from the very God-fearing mainstream they lambast as "closeted", "Kansas", "vanilla". If marriage is what is desired, then find a willing mate of the opposite sex...just like every heterosexual does. It's not a complicated formula.

But then again, simple is just oh too Kansas.