Logic errors

Here's the thing:

The US is not a theocracy. Therefore, anything you say that refers to God, or your Higher Being, or Christian Values, is automatically irrelevant to government policy/law discussions. That's all there is to it. I could go on and on about how my God requires me to do a number of things, but that would have no bearing on you. Capiche?

Legislating morals doesn't work. Regardless of what you think is right, you can't push to legally enforce those ideals on other people. We tried that in 1919. It lasted 14 years, and did not actually work in the interim. How many of us have heard of "bathtub gin" and Speakeasies? You can't legislate morals. It doesn't work, and it's inappropriate to try. Especially when those morals are based on religion. See point A.

Up until the Victorian Era, nobody cared what you did in your bedroom, as long as the line was preserved. You could have a "bastard" child (if you were a man), as long as you had a legitimate child as well. Marriage was a way of cementing alliances, not a loving relationship. The nuclear family is an imagining of modern Western civilization, and it is already beginning to unravel.

These are a few of the points that I've been wanting to yell at bigots for the past several months. I haven't gotten the opportunity to, unfortunately. Several weeks ago my school was visited by a Law Professor who spent her time on her soapbox advocating that all children be raised by "their biological mother and biological father", she herself being a child of divorce. She related the argument that the lgbt community should be able to marry the person they love with the fact that she loves her daughter, but she shouldn't be able to marry her. By the time I got up there, I was so horrified and down trodden that I could not restate my point to make them understand my question. The fact that they could not understand it made my point to me, but it might not have to the audience.

Minnesota currently has a law on the books stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet there is a marriage amendment going up for vote this November to put this definition into the constitution.  All this does is further indoctrinate the idea of "traditional values" and limit the next generations access to change. Not having this pass changes nothing, and yet if it passes, it will take years for things to change back.
My question was "Why is it okay to have the older generation vote on something that does NOTHING but limit the choices of the younger generation, those we are supposed to be protecting".

I think it's an appropriate question. And I think I'm uniquely qualified to ask it, considering I won't be voting in the upcoming election. Because I can't. I won't be old enough. And yet I know what I would say if I could.