re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
"The crux of the issue is that "marriage" is a religeious term, and most religions have something against gays. Therefore, gay marriages should be opposed. It's purely religious."
Hmm, did they have gay marriages in any of the non-religious states such a Sovet Union?
I know there are cultures which are "not secular" and have gay marriages as an institution of society- and has been that way for a very long time. How can you defend the assertion that's it's "purely religious"?
(And I don't even have to bring the obvious fact there is a significant amount gay relationships in religious institutions).