Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you change it's meaning that also means your parents and their parents, and in the end it doesn't mean anything anymore, it's theatre. As society has changed so should we, but it shouldn't be a mandatory celebration..

No you don't. The one great thing about tradition is how quickly it is established and how quickly it can, and does, change depending on circumstances. A somewhat telling example would be the practice of execution which was only formally abolished on 11 April 1982. Count the number of people who seriously make a point of it being reinstated. Does it change anything related to any parent or ancestor of yours being executed? Likewise: levée en masse is now suspended. Does that mean anything to any parent or ancestor of you who served or evaded service in the Dutch army? Does it make their contribution/sacrifices or lack thereof any more or less relevant? And let's not forget that our ancestors had few qualms about what their ancestors might have thought either: now, we no longer go to a great Oak thousands of years old to debate matters pertaining to our tribe or clan either, and we have dispensed with the practice of hijacking every English vessel that comes within our reach too. We no longer plot to attack the French and we even accept Catholic clergy again.

There is a definite problem with your (in general, not just yours in particular) reasoning somewhere if you cannot make the distinction between yourself and others, between yourself and your parents, close relatives, ancestors etc. etc. Saying that you “change” your parents or ancestors merely by changing something which may not even affect you directly (getting married is a bit of a big if nowadays) is rather absurd. To let what your ancestors hypothetically might feel have a direct impact on the lives of others when you do not even (actively) support their (now outdated) ideas on marriage is even more so.

Rather than focusing on an argument without substance (my dead ancestors from 2000 years ago couldn't care less either); I prefer to look at the group of people who have a very valid point when they protest that if their state does not deal in discrimination by its own admission, then how come it does marry some people but not them? It is either the one or the other, but not both. The issue arises only, of course, if you posit that marriage is before the state rather than any other institution (which any group might found) or a private affair or that the legal status is still a relevant distinction.