"Maybe the issue will be decided without the vote, without the masses determining the definition of a society-based description of a sanctioned sexual relationship between people: marriage. The very definition of what is normal and what isn’t is at stake and the courts may ultimately hear those pleas and have to make the determination and come up with language to describe a new or the same definition of marriage as it now stands in most states: “Between one man and one woman”. Any decision by vote will likely be strategically appealed by gay-marriage advocates until the Supreme Court hears the arguments. The only viable ones at that level can be nothing but discrimination. And there are weighty arguments against that as a viable plea.

Throughout this report I will refer alternately to members of this movement as GLBTQ or gay or homosexual, or paraphilias, or queer etc. The reason for this is because there really isn’t a clear distinction between the names for the purposes of the current lobby that seeks to unite under an umbrella to legitimize what they do under marriage by using discrimination as the legal shoehorn to accomplish this. And the people themselves often use different terms to refer to their movement....

...Even though you may not agree with it, components of this report may be the seed of compelling legal arguments against gay marriage in the months and years to come. Logic is the language that lawyers also speak. So even if at this point of reading you are utterly put-off or thoroughly offended by it, you would do well to read it to understand what you will most likely be up against. Blind justice is sometimes the wrong path to take if all the facts are not on the table. There are more than just the rights of individual homosexuals at stake here. There are also the rights of a collective people to determine, literally, their social norms."