Which is more important, protecting the traditional definition of an institution or equal protection under the?

If the homophobes were so concerned about protecting marriage they would also be out protesting the legality of divorce. Divorce actually destroys marriage while gay marriage has ZERO affect on heteros. If their problem is with marriage then they should go after marriage as a whole, not picking on gays. The Yes on 8 people are homophobes. ALL OF THEM. Instead of admitting it they just hide behind religious arguments pretend like they're deeply concerned about the definition of the word "marriage".

They also claimed that schools would be teaching gay marriage which is a lie. If they actually believed that then why weren't they protesting the school system? I bet they don't their kids being taught about adultery, lying or divorce (3 very popular conservative traits) yet I can guarantee they wouldn't vote in favor of banning any of those.

Yes on 8 people are homophobic Nazi's. They know, we know it and in a few years they're going to be the minority and society will view them the same way we view the KKK.

Both men and women have a choice before conception thanks to contraceptives, but only women have a choice after because of abortion. Of course only women should decide whether they want an abortion or not, but men should be able to decide early on in the pregnancy about whether or not they will help support the child. Laws that say a father MUST support the child were probably created back when abortion was not legal and if it were not then they would make sense. I'm all for "financial abortion" rights, but don't think many in the legislature would be brave enough to put it into law.

Every adult is allowed to marry another consenting adult of the opposite sex, with some limitations.

Sounds pretty equal to me. You are free to marry any single person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else is.

You're making a mistaken argument, IMO. A perfectly valid law that is not in violation of equal protection can sometimes have disparate impacts on people depending upon culture, faith, orientation, whatnot. Disparate impact does not make a law a violation of the equal protection clause.

Besides, the biggest problem people have with same-sex marriage is that it has been imposed upon them by an oligarchy of judges, not enacted into law by their elected representatives. Americans don't like tyranny under any guise. That's one not so insignificant reason why people voted for Constitutional amendments against it.

Equal protection under the law. Everybody gets the same rights.

The Civil rights act was not popular either. But the courts said separate but equal is not constitutional. Guess we're still learning that lesson...

What's traditional today is known as slavery tomorrow....

Equal protection under the law.

Once upon a time the Bible was used to justify slavery and later on the laws against interracial marriage. Those used to be 'traditions' too.

The only legal aspect to marriage is its recognition.

I don't support faith-based initiatives, but I guarantee you that if I tried to rally this point and get it on a petition, I would get squashed by the anti-atheist majority.

Why are my rights being violated?

equal protection obviously.