It's not fair that heterosexuals got to decide that homosexuals can't marry, the popular vote doesn't work in a case like this, I don't recognize its' legality. Marriage is contractual union between people, and people CHOOSE to marry for differing reasons, some for love, some for status, some for power, not all people get married with the intention of having their own biological child, which is something Jon forgot to mention, just because a man and a woman get together is 'sacred'? What about when the two aren't genetically compatible enough, or one is barren? Is it still 'sacred'?To say he's not ignorant or homophobic or phony for opposing gay marriage is a laugh, it is the very definition of homophobic. The reason he sees marriage as such a sacred thing is because he associates it with family, but not all of us come from an "ideal, plutonic family". I enjoyed hearing him be idealistic in the first part, but while he's trying to be philosophical, he ought to try harder to relieve himself of these bigoted standards of "marriage by definition" BTW definitions do change.Another thing: The Times=Ultra-liberal? Didn't they support the Iraq War?