Rights for homosexuals - just a smokescreen

If two consenting adults of either gender want to commit themselves into a lifetime partnership - more power to 'em. We should all receive the same CIVIL rights regardless of orientation. The government, however has NO CIVIL right to change not just the definition of marriage, but the CIVIL rights of those that the traditional term of marriage has defined. If we were just talking about a dictionary change, that would be one thing, but laws that were passed in states like MA, and trying to get passed in states like CA & FL are worded in such a (subtle) way that your CIVIL right to morally disagree with this new definition will be gone. If you did not agree to have your child (as early as kindergarten) taught about homosexuality, you could be arrested for a hate crime. If your church opens themselves for public worship, but your doctrine stated that marriage is between a man and a woman and ordained of God, and therefore could not marry a gay couple, that church could be sued, fined and shut down. If a doctor didn't feel morally right about inseminating for a gay couple, he/she could be fined and fired. These are not speculations, they have already happened in Massachusetts.
Believe it or not, there is a bigger problem. In CA. the majority of the voters wanted to keep the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The CA supreme court in a 4-3 vote overturned the decision. The definition of marriage to include homosexuals is a smokescreen. It's about giving away our power. We (gay and straight alike) CANNOT allow 7 judges (who can be bought), to legislate from the bench. We CANNOT allow 7 judges to assume superiority over the voters and the ability to overturn a majority vote. Laws like Prop 8 in CA tells the judges that WE THE PEOPLE decide, not them.