^
I agree for the most part. However, the same people who vehemently oppose gay marriage also vehemently oppose civil unions. In the end, the easiest solution is for the government to get out of sponsoring any king of marriage as a civil contract. Let the churches marry according the tenets of the respective faith. Then, let people use contract and testament law to accord rights currently given via "marriage," just like the opposers say gay people wanting marriage for that reason should do. They assert it is very easy to contract into these things - so, even the playing field by making everyone do it by contract. But, the crazies think that they are tread upon if the government does not validate their faith, which says to me that their faith is weak to begin with.
As for the sow known as Ms. California, she has made and, along with her peeps, will continue to make lots of money on this issue - ditto for Perez Hilton. It was a fair question and her answer was not the political one, which is the required one. She is not there to way what she personally feels. Rather, she must show she relates to all people.
As for people getting angry with her - of course they have a right to attack her for what she said. Free speech cuts both ways. Moreover, if she had said that blacks should not be able to marry whites, we would not be having this discussion and almost everyone, save for some racists, would be attacking her.
Finally, I wonder how many times she had to fellate Trump to get him to let her bend back - errrr I mean contract
