the good people come along

No image here.  I do not want you to be distracted or entertained.  If you are someone who voted in the majority on one of the below questions, you owe it to a lot of people to read on.  Yes.  I said you owe it.

Arizona - ban on gay marriage

Arkansas - ban on gay couples adopting children

California - ban on gay marriage

Florida - ban on gay marriage

Help me with this.  How can 62% of voters in Florida think this is right.  Never mind the argument that recognition of the religious facet of a marriage by the state is troublesome with respect to a "law respecting an establishment of religion".  Forget that when you get down to it, the law views it as not a lot more than a special contract.  The thing is why.  Why do you want to tell someone they cannot be 'married'.

When you vote, perhaps you like to maintain that your vote is private.  Why.  You are proud of the fact you voted, correct?  We all love the sticker.  So what underlies that secrecy -- your 'right' to say 'my vote is my own'.  Could it be that this is your unadulterated opportunity to impose your will without having to answer to anyone.  Is it that you are not so proud of how you voted.  After all this time 'they' have flaunted 'it' in front of you -- indeed, in front of your children, this is your chance to answer.  Is it that you cannot articulate a foundation for what you have done.

Now I want to argue with you.  At least at you.  Justify your vote or acknowledge what you have done.  Why should your state recognize your marriage, and not a same sex marriage.  Your answer is that marriage is ordained of God, right?  Let's run with that.  Back to the first amendment.  You vote under the umbrella of the constitution.  Are you demanding that your state recognize your religious union and ignore the non-ordained union?  Please.  Tell me how in one breath, you claim a constitution, you wave the bill of rights, your right to your religion and no state interference with it, but you privately darken an oval to demand that your state affirmatively disrespect a union because it lacks endorsement by an establishment of religion.

I am not arguing to you that the times are changing.  I am not reminding you of all of us being created equal, of inalienable rights, of pursuit of happiness, of peacable assembly.  Of privacy -- not just your own.  I am suggesting that you ran with a whim.  You do not like the lifestyle of a same sex couple.  And you had no accountability.  That should not be left unsaid.  You did not stand up in a town hall and vote; you had the luxury of truly darkening so many ovals without answering to anyone.  So many abstract ovals.  

I hope the abstractions become real to you today.  In fact, you should celebrate.  Out of pride in what you have accomplished, you deserve a wish come true -- a chance to reach out and help someone see the light.  

How about you go out into your community today, find a same sex couple, and talk with them.  You need not even listen.  Here is the remarkable opportunity.  Acknowledge they are human (you need not say this; a smile may suffice).  And after you confirm they are human, gay, and that you have their attention, simply share (because you believe in your vote and you are proud).  Following is a suggested script:

• Hello.  You seem like nice enough people, but I hope you are never able to marry.  I voted to see that you cannot.  I did that because [insert your honest reason here].  I know you understand.  I am here to help.
  
• [Optional for Arkansas -- ] I know you do not see it now, but you are patently unfit to raise and care for children.  Nothing personal.  I voted to see that you cannot adopt.  I did that because [honest reason here].  I know you understand.  I am here to help.

While I have a greater word count on this topic, Jason Kottke (link here) has a way with words. And brevity.
  ... and Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic writes "Oh, No, You Don't"

... and the Shutter Bitch doesn't mince words