Until the Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a 14th amendment right to marry, however, my opinion means squat. :-)

On the ohter hand….

As a matter of strategy, I think that we might be better off if gay marriage exists for several years in a few states before being forced on the whole country. If gay marriage exists for a while, it’ll become much harder for the homophobes to attack gay marriage, because they will no longer be talking about a faceless, nameless horror; they’ll be talking about legally breaking up the marriages and families of real people. It’ll also become much harder for them to claim that gay marriage will cause the sky to fall, or bring about the end of straight marriage, or whatnot.

He seems to think that things would be better
if the Supremes hadn’t done Roe v. Wade and we would have abortion legal in some states and not others — well I was THERE before Roe v. Wade
and I can assure you that the knowledge that
abortion was legal 500 miles away was of no
comfort to the poor and the young who were
“in trouble” and sought illegal and back alley
abortions.
Things were fine for the middle class housewife
but otherwise it was terrible.

In fact, the “federalist” solution has NEVER worked
in any case where a minority was seeking equal rights.
The majority is never kindly disposed towards
human rights and it always required a judiciary to force the case - or, in the one counter example,
a civil war.

Worst opinion ever (tm Matt Groening)

If “radical gay activists” want to change society and marriage, great. But that doesn’t help the gay couple that wants to get married, have next-of-kin rights, custody rights, and all of the ensuing rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. The argument he brought up about heteosexual couples who live together and don’t get married benefits ignores one crucial thing–*they* have the option to get married and get those benefits if they choose. Gays *don’t*.

It’s all well and good to pooh-pooh the issue; but when you are denied access to your lover because she’s in the ICU and you aren’t considered legally “family” it’s a big deal. When your lover dies and you don’t have the right to inherit the home you both lived in because he’s not legally your spouse, it’s an issue. And unlike het couples who want to make a statement against marriage or who don’t want to marry, gays don’t have the luxury of choice. Hets can choose to get married and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Gays can’t. And that’s wrong.

You think marriage is an unequal institution, that it’s unfair for people who are married to have family benefits that unmarried couples don’t have, fine. Work to increase rights for all. I don’t see how it’s constructive to dismiss the wishes of gays who would like to marry, or to cast aspersions on their dedication to the cause for wanting to commit. Sadly, it’s the people who treat gay marriage as a zero-sum game who have fallen prey to a shrivelling imagination.