And this is the observation of an author who is friendly to gay marriage, based upon the statement of one of the lawyers arguing that California’s Prop 8 should be struck down.

Justice Ming Chin, who had voted with [Chief Justice Ron}George in May [to declare gay marriage a right under the California Constituion], asked anti-8 attorney Michael Maroko if the answer was to get rid of marriage altogether. Get it: Have the states license civil unions for all, and then leave it to churches to bestow the title of marriage. Chin was not the only justice to suggest this split- the-baby compromise.

To which, Maroko responded, "If gay couples don't have the right to marry, then straight couples shouldn't either."

I believe the argument that gay marriage doesn't destroy straight marriage. Now I learn that if there is no same-sex marriage, activists want to destroy heterosexual marriage.

Got that – not only does the radical homosexual lobby wish to take from you the right to self-government, they wish to destroy the institution of marriage if they fail to do so. And when they take from you the right to pass laws and amend constitutions in a manner supported by the majority, they will next come for other freedoms as well – the right to speak freely (by declaring it “hate speech”) and the right of churches to refuse to perform or acknowledge homosexual marriages (using the Bob Jones decision to declare churches that do so to be ineligible for tax exemptions). They’ve already gutted the right of individuals to operate their businesses in accord with their moral beliefs through the application of anti-discrimination laws in such a way as to force Christians to participate in gay weddings. What we are seeing, in effect, is little short of a campaign of legal terrorism to expand the rights of homosexuals at the expense of the rights of everyone else.

And now they are seeking to remove the word marriage from California law.