You read it wrong, with good reason with the editing problems.
In a nutshell, and what I answered to you was simple. My problem with this entire case is a homosexual couple attempting to force a religious institution to change their basic tenants because of a decision they have made.
Once again, this has as much to do with the child as Michael Newdows USSC case on the pledge had to do with his child. It is about a minority population attempting to change the basic institution of our country (in this case, a fully recognized church) because they have made the decision to live their life in a way that is rejected by the vast majority of society.
If Oregon rolls over on gay marriage then the people of that state will deal with that decision. It will be interesting to see what is going to happen to the few states that will allow gay marriage and the states that refuse to recognize it.
One last thing, you do enjoy putting words into peoples mouths, that is obvious - however I will give you a pass due to the editing problem I had. Let me repeat one more time, my problem is not with the child in this case, it is however with her parents and their attempts to force a religion to change 1,000 of years of teaching to suit their wants.
... this has as much to do with the child as Michael Newdows USSC case on the pledge...
This is a couple trying not to force a change in a basic religious tenet on a whole church, they just want to get a rule change in who can and cannot be admitted to the school. They make the point that their behavior is not that of their daughter's, and her admission should be decided on the merits of the daughter's qualifications, not who she lives with. The Newdow case was trying to force a change in classroom behavior, namely the dropping of the words "under God" from the Pledge, and it was trying to use the courts to force it on everyone, whether or not Newdow's child went to that school or not. That's why I don't see the two things as a fair comparision.
... they have made the decision to live their life in a way that is rejected by the vast majority of society.
I have no doubt it appears that way to you in South Florida. Out here in the Pacific Northwest, where church attendance is statistically low, and even among those who do attend, its at a liberal Christian denomination's house of worship, there is much more of a live-and-let-live attitude on all kinds of things, including homosexuality. I've been to Eugene, and parts of it look like it never left 1969. The city is home to the University of Oregon, and if you follow polls on acceptability of homosexuality, you'll find that younger, college-age people are far more apt to be completely tolerant of gay marriage, and homosexual relations in general. Yes, I'm sure you know some college age people where you live who don't think so, but if the polling statistics are to be believed even a little bit, it means that in the liberal areas, they're VERY liberal, balancing out those in the South who still follow traditional religious teachings and beliefs regarding homosexuality.
If Oregon rolls over on gay marriage then the people of that state will deal with that decision. It will be interesting to see what is going to happen to the few states that will allow gay marriage and the states that refuse to recognize it.
Interstate 5 runs north-south through the western half of Oregon. From Portland on the north, to Ashland on the south, practically every sizable city along that corridor has a college. The ones in the center and north attract people from Portland, and its suburbs, and as you recall, this was where an attempt at legalizing gay marriage started in Oregon. There is a county in the central part of that state, where Oregon State University is, that is STILL refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight, until the law is sorted out in the Oregon courts, in order to avoid discriminating against anyone.
Outside of that I-5 corridor, Oregon is fairly sparsely populated. There is one whole county in eastern Oregon that is just slightly smaller than the entire state of Massachusetts! Of course, it has a LOT less people. These are the realities that I'm referring to, when talking about how Oregon will not vote to make marriage male-female only. Once the vote goes down in November, look for the courts to green-light gay marriage, they know that if they do so before the election, they might just keep it from passing, and they don't want to do that.
As to your question of how things will work, I go back to the years 1967-1973, when abortion was legal in a few places, but not most. Of course, the difference there is that when a woman traveled to California or Washington (and also Oregon) when she came back, it was without her baby. When gay couples come back from pro-gay marriage states, I expect most states to declare the marriages against public policy, some that have liberal judiciaries to decide that the marriages are valid, and the whole thing will get thrown into the Supreme Court some five or six years from now, at most.
Then, we'll find out if the Court considers gay marriage a fundamental Constitutional right, or simply a states rights matter.
One last thing, you do enjoy putting words into peoples mouths, that is obvious...
You're right, I got out of line on that one, and I thank you for your forgiveness on it.