Opposing gay marriage to protect the children?

One frequent heard argument to object to gay marriage is that it is better for the children. lets assume for the moment that it is indeed true, despite that it is clearly not. Is a ban on gay marriage actually having an effect on where those children grow up? Not at all? The only difference is that they have two parents who are not married and have no rights, but for the rest, they will have two fathers or two mothers regardless. So, why oppose gay marriage if prohibiting gay marriage does not have an effect on where the children grow up?

California supreme court: Marriage is just a word

Marriage for gay couples seems to be ended in California, but it seems that the justices take hat VERY narrowly, namely meaning just the word marriage. They pretty much explicitly say that gays should have the same rights, and that no form of discrimination is allowed. Or as justice Kennard, one of the two swing voters indicated:

She reminded lawyers that the "core" part of last year's marriage ruling required the state to give sexual orientation the same constitutional protection as race and gender.

Proposition 8 "hasn't destroyed equal protection," Kennard said.

So, here we go again, do we want the same rights, or do we want the same term? I think the gay movement in this country is loosing ground by requiring that we get the same term and the same rights, because much of the opposition has to do with the term. Many religious people see marriage as a sacred term, and just for that purpose, they object to it. So, by choosing for equal rights, and give the term marriage to the religious for the time being, we can improve dramatically in our rights. As soon as we have our rights, we can argue that the term marriage should be taken out of the legal system because it is a violation of the separation between church and state, but that is a fight we can fight later.

It is time that someone asks for the same rights from the Californian government without wanting to use the word marriage, and see what the justices of the supreme court rule. One willing municipality (San Francisco?) who make a move towards and it might be quickly enough resolved. As long as we want to have rights to the word Marriage, we are loosing this battle. (Now I duck and run for the anger this provokes from my fellow gay activists)

Only marriage between a man and a woman of the same race is valid or recognized in California

In California, proposition 8 added the following words to the state constitution:

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

We have recognized that rights cannot be denied based on skin colour, but people can be actively discriminated against because they are gay.

Barrel Eye Fish

Man, I think this is one of the most awesome fishes I ever saw:

Michael Egnor's unsubstantiated claims

Michael Egnor keeps claiming that ID has produced evidence for design:

Some aspects of biology, particularly molecular biology, show clear scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Really, the same rehashed creationist claims that are presented over and over again as 'evidence' for design? Show us the irrefutable proof before claiming once again that you have proof. But let me guess, he does not have it.

And before you claim that each and every person who thinks evolution is the only sensible explanation is an atheist, I am not, you are wrong!

Bush: Worst Presedent EVER

This video speaks for itself