What a bunch of losers...had the vote turned out the other way and it had been upheld on that count they wouldn't have been calling the voters of CA 'mob rule'. All it affirms, twirly whirlys is that people believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is not a hard concept to understand. It does not mean you can not have a negotiated contract with two men or two women, but you can not call that marriage. Marriage already has a long standing definition that is, apparently, not open for change. this is also a victory for the English language seeing how 'gay' had already been hijacked. Thankfully, now, 30 years from now we hopefully won't hear the word 'marriage' and conjur up visions of a bulldyke and her lipstick when the word is mentioned. On that note, even if you hijacked marriage it really wouldn't have changed anything. People have a way of adjusting to move away from the inconsistency 'gay marriage' represents. Straight people would have probably started rejecting the term and you still would not have fit into the new square hole that would spring up to describe male/female unions. Male/female unions also would have probably started opting not to have legal recognition if it meant that they had to share the title with any two individuals who wanted to form a union. Human beings are funny that way.