Since i'm a heterosexual one would think that i would understand why the marriages being performed in San Francisco between homosexuals constitutes an "emergency", but i don't. And yet, there are people that think these marriages are such a horrible thing that they want to pass laws that explicitly restrict marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman. They claim this is to preserve the sanctity of marriage. But if these people are serious about preserving the sanctity of marriage, why is it that they don't seem to be doing much about lowering the divorce rate, which is higher in the United States than any other country in the world? By "doing something", i mean something more meaningful than wringing their hands.
In theory, the main reason to get married, if not to ritually affirm one's commitment to a personal relationship and to notify the State that such an alliance exists, is to provide a stable basis for the raising of children. In theory, under the guidance, protection, and nurturing of two adults, children stand a much better chance of growing up to fill responsible roles in society. If the wish to reserve the rights of marriage is a wish to encourage the raising of children under the auspices of a stable relationship, why not let married homosexuals as a couple adopt as well? Claiming that homosexual relationships are unstable and then doing everything one can to make sure they stay that way suggests that either instability of the relationship isn't the real issue for such critics or that they aren't really thinking. Implying that marriage should be reserved to couples who are potentially capable of breeding but not taking steps to assure that only fertile couples are allowed to marry implies, again, that claims that the rights of marriage should be reserved for couples who give birth to the next generation are skirting the real issue.
So, what is the issue with two men or two women deciding to get married? To claim that marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples because God says so isn't a satisfactory explanation. For better or worse, the founders of the United States decided that freedom of religion is a Good Thing, and so they stipulated that the government could not dictate to the citizens which religion they embrace. But if the government cannot dictate which religion an individual practices, then it cannot tell him which scripture to accept as an authority either. That being the case, barring a secular marriage because it isn't sanctioned by a given god is not constitutional.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the separation of Church and State is a bad idea and that all law should be based on the dictates of a religion. That still leaves the question of which religion to use, and why shouldn't it be one that forbids men to shave their chins and requires women to wear a veil in public? If Christians can adequately explain why they should not have to become apostates, they should be able to understand why they should not expect the State to effectively force their religion on others.