When I got married in California, some 22 years ago, I was under the impression that, aside from competence, the only concern was that my husband and I were of majority and, thus, legally subject to the terms of the state's marriage contract.

If the state is now making the opposite sex of the parties a requirement in civil marriage contracts, should they not do the same for other civil contracts, such as loans, purchases, job contracts, and so on? If not, why not? Is it because, unlike those other agreements, marriage is considered a religious contract, in the state of California?

For Prop 8 to pass and the state constitution to be amended, evidently, marriage must be in a separate class from other contracts over which the state has jurisdiction. And, if the distinction between the marriage contract and other contracts is not based on religion, could someone please tell me just exactly what it is based upon? Unless someone can convince me that religion has nothing to do with California marriage contracts, it appears that, in presiding over my marriage, the state has violated my right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to not be subject to any law respecting an establishment of religion.

Furthermore, the state failed to tell me about the religious nature of the agreement before I entered into it. There wasn't even any fine print regarding this issue. I do not agree to be bound by what is clearly a religious contract, which means that my marriage is now null and void. The legal and financial ramifications of this, for me and the man I've been living with for more than 22 years, are enormous. Shouldn't the state of California be liable for damages?