Some More connections, thoughts, proposition 8

I've continued to think about the subject, and a few more thoughts have come to mind. The connections are kind of hinted at, but I didn't even fully make them in my brain until this morning.
Interestingly, it's kind of a flip from the opinions I've read about leaving the decision about who they'll marry to the religions. But that's actually it exactly. In order to assure their right to the pursuit of happiness, or their agency, homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" if they choose to call it that, in their private circumstances, be it religiously or whatever, but let the rights and privileges be bound only within the religion and not be connected to the state.

That is, inasmuch as religion is an institution of state, this implies financial and legal obligations to its protection and to the protection of the participating parties. This is justified because marriage has been determined to have positive influences on the governed people, at least inasmuch as they service the children of the nation. Other thoughts have come to me that even without children, the unit of marriage benefits society in its best practice because marriages bring together the minds of both sexes in a way that no other organization can, and the uniting of the sexes' gifts and ways of thinking is a benefit to society.

Therefore, in order to justify the expenditures of government on the marriages of homosexual couples (inasmuch as it has been determined the government does expend), it would need to be proven that these unions add to society in the same way that the unions of heterosexuals do. Because these unions do not bring together the minds of both sexes, and the raising of children within such has not been determined to benefit society in the same way, then there is no justification for the inclusion of these unions under the government's protective and promotional measures as are instituted for the cause and institution of marriage.

Additionally, inasmuch as government funds are involved in the decision to include these unions in the legal definition, the voice of the people must be sought. Therefore, the judges exercised decisions outside of their powers, and the votes of the people should stand for the determination to maintain the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.