Amen to that, dude.

It can't be said enough, or in enough places. It's time for this publicly acceptable form of discrimination to become unaccaptable.

I think Bush really blew it on this one. It smells of desperation and division and flopsweat.

While polls (with carefully worded questions) show a majority of Americans opposing gay marriage, I suspect relatively few will go out of their way to support an amendment. It might firm up support in his base, but they're true believers anyway. Those on the margins may roll their eyes and wonder what the hell they saw in this guy four years back.

There's a good chance that this move will quietly disappear in a few weeks, just like Bush's vague advocacy for a renewed space program.

I think the worst part in all this is that a judge, not sure which one, or what level he was in, said that banning same-sex marriages was anticonstitutional.

Dude, I live in San Francisco. I have visited the people in the lines during the first week, and I have spoken with them. The Hosexual Agenda is far more healthy than the Bush Administration Agenda.

Compare:

Homosexuals: Feed the cat
Bush Administration: Change the Constitution

H: Share their lives with someone they love
B: Topple regimes in the middle-east

H: Have families, raise good children
B: Prevent condom use

H: Get married
B: Make it government's business to save your soul

President Jackass can't go bye-bye soon enough for me.

The likelikhood of this happening this year is very small, since nobody in Congress (apart from a few extremists) is going to want to wrangle through the issue in an election year. The fact that the President would support such an Amendment is horrifying, but not at all surprising.

Those who think there is no difference between the parties have got to examine their convictions very closely in light of this (as if the last four years weren't enough). Do you really think President Gore would have done such a thing? Special interests rule the two parties, it's true, but the over-simplification of Nader and his ilk are truly culpable in this current mess.

Look at the pictures from SF. Look at the happiness, the love that pours out at you. If that's a threat to your marriage, I think you have way worse problems than homosexuals to worry about.

I live in Ontario, where gay marriages have been legal for a few months now. And I can tell you, society hasn't collapsed.

Well said!

Good lord. I wrote "Hosexual" instead of "Homosexual". My bad. Funny, but my bad.

You knew what I meant.

Good for you, Wil. I'm rapidly losing hope in my country, my government, and my fellow Americans, (never had any hope for my current president) but I'm glad you haven't lost hope yet.

Wil--

I start visiting your site as "Stand By Me" and "ST:TNG" fan -- but now I read your blog DAILY because of what you have to say, as a POLITICAL ACTIVIST and as a FAMILY MAN.

I agree with essentially everything you said in the article.

--Allan French, Silicon Valley, CA
(living in what used to be a "hi-tech mecca"; but that was before George Dubya f*cked it up and The Terminator rescued us from No-Gray-Matter Davis)

[[Yay, I'm among the First Few Posters today (I think).]]

This is a very evil strategy.
The amendment has no hopes of passing Congress, let alone being ratified by the states, and conservatives know this.
That is why I don't think it will backfire--there will be only limited criticism from the right. So, as you say, the strategy really is to divide America, because Bush has few or no positives to talk about.

Wil Wheaton for president! (Well. When he's old enough, anyways)

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether it is sexual or racial or religious.

Very well worded posting Wil. You would make an excellent Canadian! :)

Love your work, and I will definately be buying your books.

Great post Wil. The thing that infuriates me is that the drive to let homosexuals be married isn't about forcing churches to marry them. Any given church can decide not to marry a homosexual couple if it wants. This is about allowing a couple to pursue that, either at a church that does support it or via a County Clerk or whatever. No one on the right wants to acknowledge this. They want to make it out like its an attack on amrriage and next thing you know we'll be marrying our dogs and letting potted plants vote and then Western Civilization will fall... Criminey.

Here's a fun link for you
http://www.rmpn.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=53&navID=51

The "fidelity pledge" was sent to all lawmakers who are supporting this amendment. It asks them to add to the amendment a provision making divorce illegal, because if this is TRULY about 'defense of marriage' then divorce should be illegal too.

The silence of the hypocrites is deafening....

Thank you. I'm surrounded by people who disagree with me when I say some of the exact things you said here. It's nice to feel a little less alone...

wil, what's the opposite of boycott? cause that's what i'm gonna do with your site. well said, and inspiring... it's good to know that people take time and effort to see through the bullshit.
ps/ i live in ontario too. since gay marriages became legal, i've actually gotten a raise at work! maybe gay marriages had something to do with this too!?

RELAX. For a constitutional ammendment to pass, it must be approved in congress by a super-majority which means 2/3 of congress must vote for it. Then 2/3 of the states must ratify it by a 2/3 in favor vote. When was the last time you saw ANYTHING get 66% of the vote? I don't think you could 2/3 of the people to vote that chocolate tastes good.

I'm a Republican. I'm not a believer in many of the Liberal viewpoints, but . . .
. . . an Amendment to the Constitution?!?!? What is he thinking (as if). It makes me want to go out and marry a guy.

Mike
www.lindenwald.com

Thank you, Wil. You were eloquent, and you are right. This isn't about protecting the sanctity of anything - it's about hate and about fear and about getting a man that has done nothing at all for the average American over the past 4 years reelected. I can only hope that a majority of Americans, no matter how they feel about gay marriage, can begin to recognize that. Bravo!

One of my closest friends (who happens to be gay) and I were talking about the weddings that have been taking place in this beautiful city that I live in (San Francisco)... The support that Mayor Newsom has granted on gay marriages was I thought a great move, and I had no hesitation when it comes to expressing it to my friend. For some reason, I assumed automatically, that because he's gay, that he'd want the same rights as straight people have, which in this case is the right to marry the person you love.

I was completely taken aback when he told me that he is against it. He feels like marriage is simply a formality, and nothing else. He further explained that marriage is something between God and the couple...

Somehow I agree with him. Politics and religion mixing together have created this whole mess that our country is in- I think this is the primary reason why marriage loses its sanctity in the first place.

Very well written Wil. Your eloquence, intellect and ethics are enviable and commendable. Although I'm Canadian, I've lamented every single day of Bush's term as President - you've outlined just one more reason to do so. Internationally, we all would have been better off with Gore. Best wishes with JAG. Take care Wil.

Right on Wil!

As despicable as GWB's actions and statements are, I don't really think that they are idealogically motivated. If that were true, then he would have proposed this right after he was sworn into office. This is clearly political grandstanding in an election year. He knows as well as anyone that there is a 0% chance of actually passing this in the current political climate.

One positive note is that the Bush White House is very likely worried about their re-election prospects. What I've been worried about for the past year is that he was going to continue his "war for re-election" strategy and start a military build-up in Israel. This clearly bogus constitutional amendent thrust is perhaps evidence that they will, for the time being at least, actually pay attention to what the voters want.

I hope that the Democratic party is wise enough to not be distracted, and keep to the real point at hand. "We don't support your ammendment, Mr. Bush, but remind us again of your rationale for invading Iraq. What evidence did you have at that time to justify this invasion? How many American soldiers have died since you declared Victory in Iraq?". I'm hoping that Mr. Dachle (from my home state, whom I've met) and the other leaders of the Democratic party will keep a cool head and keep to the real issues.

Amen, Wil. I never thought I'd be agreeing with Democrats _or_ republicans (I'm sick of both), but Howard Dean, John Kerry and Andrew Sullivan are all correct.

This shouldn't be a political issue, either at the federal level, state level, or any other level for that matter. It should be a given that people have the right to choose, be they straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual. They have just as much right to freedoms as anyone who is a citizen of this great, yet floundering nation of ours.

I encourage all WWdN readers to vote this November. And please, for the love of Pete, Don't Vote For Bush. To do so is to hand our country over to special interests, and give up all our freedoms, not just those of a minority...

Does this remind anyone of Bush's father's term? We were all embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, horrible things were happening around the world, and here's Bush Sr., waving his hand like a magician, saying "Don't burn the flag!" Um... What? Aren't there bigger issues going on? "NO! Keep watching my hand waving and don't burn the flag!"

It just seems very... diversionary...

Well said, Wil!

I was wondering if you'd speak up about this, and I'm glad to hear you did.

Can I get a Hallefuckinglujia? Can I learn to spell? Will Lassie make it in time? Have I been saying that GW was going to go too far for even his ultra-Conservative lackeys for the last 4 years? Do I (pretty much) agree with everything you've said in this entry?

It's a flurry of yeses from start to finish, and I'm going to go tell my friends to stop making fun of me for obsessively reading your blog - this entry alone redeems me.

Eric

As usual the point was missed. Bush said that he supported "civil unions" on the state level. The problem is the attempted redefinition of the word marriage. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Gay people can get married all they want, so long as it is to someone of the opposite sex, that's the freaking definition.

I don't have a problem with 'civil unions' why should anyone else?

Well said. My only beef would be with "I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad." What about people who want to get married for other reasons, or who want to be married to more than one person? I mean, if you want to be REALLY tolerant and open-minded, then you gotta broaden this definition of marriage to include polygamy, be it polyandry or polygyny. But I say do what you will.

ROCK ON! I could not agree with you more...

Brian:

Just for the record, after the amendment is successfully proposed, 3/4 of the states must ratify it to become part of the constitution (not 2/3). The gory details are at the US Constitution FAQ.

The process is hard, by design.

well said Wil. Well said.

yes Wil yes! All my online groups are talking and dealing with this issue. and I am sure that like you said this will no doubt backfire but the audactity is scary!
Furthermore if you check the whitehouse press release today he is asking for biblical guidance! So looking at genesis in the ol bible it does indeed clearly define marriage, as as a union between one man and one OR MORE women sooo just lets dictate our society via a governement that looks to the bible for legeslative policy. woopie.

Also another important issue that wwdn readers should know about. In the house a bill HR 1997 is being debated TODAY that is a 'criminal' bill. It attempts to get tough on violence against pregnant women. Sounds rosey doesnt it? well it's called the acts of violence against unborn childern act. The problem is it takes away little by little reproductive rights from women and makes it mandiated by the government. A government that is using a 1500 year old book to decide what to do about abortions today. So I guess we all need to be aware of the bills being passed and the true ramifications of their passing. Now I am christian and do look toward the bible for guidance and lessons but I do not look toward it to tell others what to do. That is not my perogitive. Now Bush is trying to do that. But we as a society should have the right to discuss when and how life is created and how it should be protected and NOT let a crime bill incidently DEFINE life and protect a fetus just like a man or women. If we as a society decide upon that then so be it, but where is the discussion?

Thank you.

I've been coming to your site since shortly after Sept. 11, and one of the many things that has kept me coming back is that you continue to stand up for what you believe no matter the consequences. I admire and respect you for that!

By the way, when we will learn that separate but equal is anything but?

Very well said. I've been waiting for you to speak up, and I'm very happy that you did it so eloquently. Consequences be damned. The truth is the truth, and it will prevail over bigotry...eventually.

This possible amendment is discrimination in the highest form at the highest level. In a country founded on the basis of freedom for one and all, our leaders are making decisions that ultimately undermine that goal. They make decisions that relegate an entire section of our society to second class citizens. The Constitution says "All men were created equal." At that time, it didn't mean all men but all white men. After more than two hundred years, we've made that belief encompass all men and women regardless of color, but apparently that equality only applies if you are heterosexual.

Isn't it enough that they force us to live in fear? Now, they are trying to undermine the foundation of civil liberty our country was created for.

For the sake of Americanism, vote anti-Bush in November.

i went ahead and posted this on an lj community i run down here ... you have a great many more readers, thought id pass it along: http://www.pfaw.org/go/save_our_constitution/

"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Right on Wil,

"Evil is what happens when good people do nothing"
Go out and vote and get this idiot out of office.

Shout it from the roof tops. I'd love to see (at least) a 90% turnout.

"Freedom is everybody's fight."

Heh, when I started reading this post there were two comments. Now there's about thirty.

This kind of homophobia crap is what has driven people out of this country for decades. Expatriates all through history have left America for places like France where people understand that some people are gay. Yet another issues where America is behind the times.

You know, it's a good thing we have free speech here, because there's a whole lot of stuff to talk about.

Thank you, Wil.

Good post. Your comment about the complete irrelevance of gay marriages to the success or failure of your own is perfect.

Well said Wil! I support your post 100%!!!

Jeez, the land of freedom is starting to look more and more like Iran every day.

- The European

Amen to that. And thanks for addressing this, Wil. Civil unions just don't cut it--no federal protection.

So banning same sex marriage is a good idea because...? What, there's too much love in the world, and we need to cut down on some of it? I'd also like to hear no more about the sanctity of sacred nature of marriage. As far as the government and courts are concerned the issue of marriage should be strictly an issue of legal contract (hello?!? seperation of church and state? Anyone?! Anyone?!) If certain religions or churchs want to ban it or refuse to recognize same sex unions, fair game, but not the US government. If you take the religious elements out of the argument against same sex marriage there is no longer any wind in that sail.

As individuals, I would love to see more people who look at this from the perspective of, "If two consenting adults make a commitment to love and support each other, how is that ever a bad thing?" We should care only about where people (again consenting adults) put their hearts and not where they stick their d---s...

Regarding my earlier comments: Intelligent commentators are welcome to visit my website. You can post publicly to the Guest Book ("personal" pages) or privately to the Submission Form ("professional" pages, see link above résumé).

Since I can remove vulgar remarks and will learn your IP address, please save us both the effort and keep it polite. Thanks!

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form, either for hetero or homo. At most, the only thing you should have to register with the government is your joint intention to share responsibility for children ("co-parents"), and that should even be open to more than two people. There shouldn't be "legal" gay marriage or "legal" hetero marriage, at least not in terms of the government getting involved. If you want to designate someone as your emergency contact/medical person or what not, go ahead. Doesn't mean the government needs to issue you a piece of paper to reflect a purely social convention.

Thank you, Wil. Well said.

Thanks for that. More people need to stand up and say how wrong a Cons. amendment would be. And thanks for the Nixon thing..I'd never heard that, but boy does it sound familiar.

E
Dublin, Ireland

Bless you for this Wil. If anything it further affirms my belief that you're one amazing guy.

Can't wait to read the new book!

Wil,

I've been a fan for many years, and with this statement, you've just guaranteed that I will be for many years to come.

Thank you.

i'm sure this will take some bashing, but listen up. have you ever stopped to think that maybe it's not about hate and discrimination? that some people believe in a higher power, that some are willing to take a stand for what they believe in? I believe, along with GWB, that supporting gay marriage would be wrong and would hurt the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. We believe in the Bible and in God. We believe in supporting Israel. We believe in things that would take me volumes to discuss. I don't hate homosexuals but I don't support them in their "marriages" and I won't vote for someone who does.
I am sorry if I am wrong, but from reading this site I feel that you take the democrat flavor of the day and run with it, taking every opportunity to bash Bush. Then all of the comments that I see (in my admittedly limited reading of the comments - full disclosure) support you 100%. Somehow I feel this is more in regards to their "idolization" of Wil Wheaton than a clear understanding of the facts involved. I use the word "idolization" for the lack of a better more appropriate word at this time - no I don't think they are worshipping you.
I would love to have the chance for a back and forth, academic discussion with you that you would post on your site, weekly or monthly and we could seriously offer our respective sides, me being a GWB-voting southern republican, and you having apparently liberal leanings.

I will admit that what you say often makes me angry, but I want to approach this in a civilized manner. Would you be open to a forum of this nature? Give me a topic and a few days for research and let us produce our arguments.

sincerely,

david dickerson

Maybe Bush and his cronies would be happy if gay people used different words than "wedding" and "marriage" to define their union. Then the definition of the word "marriage" between a man and a woman would stand secure.

I agree with Senator Kerry. Has Dubya nothing else to worry about????
5 million unemployed and he's pissed about a few folk in SF having a nice day out.

What an asshole.

I have never looked forward to an election so much.

I think Bush got some horrible advice. He is suring up his right wing religious votes by sacrificing all the homosexuals. I think the votes gained won't outweigh the negative effects in the poll of public opinion. There are far to many people that know gay marriage isn't going to hurt them. Bottom line homosexuals should be allowed to pledge there love for each other and they can already. They should benefit from financial situations that other married couple benefit from, but the federal government should have nothing to do with this. Even our founding fathers thought that during peace time federal goverment should be limited severly. In this time of war the president should concentrate on more important issues. Really i swear i dont know the man, but i do support this war on terror, i do support the liberation of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam H., but whatever his belief on gay marriage he should have kept it to himself. The amendment idea was just stupid. *All to float the party line and secure right with republican votes.

Oh yeah and I am a libertarian.

JRS

Yeah, Wil!!!

*applause*

In response to a person above, the problem with "civil unions" is that it is still a seperate but equal thing. Unless you want the state to issue "civil union" liscenses to all couples reguardless of gender, it is still descrimination.

Wil,
You couldn't have said it better. I admire your courage to stand up for what you believe in, even more so when you have a book coming out. Your entries are excellent. I even enjoy the technical ones that I can barely understand.
I think we can all expect great things from you over the years. Looking forward to watching your career grow and grow!

Thank you for standing up and posting what you believe!!!!! Amen! :)

Wil --

I think you're dead on... That was a very impressive entry! Thanks for writing AND posting that.

Nags

Thank you for standing up for what you believe in!!!! Amen! :)

See, the problem I have with marriage for men and women and civil unions for everyone else is that you create a subcategory of people. It's that whole "separate but equal" thing I alluded to before. We don't have a strong history of affording the same rights to two different subcategories of people. You end up with the ability to give a one set of rights to marriages (say for example, all the benefits inherent in a marriage right now)and a separate set of rights to "civil unions" (say for example, letting the spouse/partner make decesions, but disallowing them inheritance rights). I'd like to think idealistically that this wouldn't happen, but just by reading my history book, I'm not willing to put my faith in the system. It needs to be called one thing only, or the government just needs to stay out of it all together.

Hey Wil,

I've been reading your site for a while now and enjoy it very much. I guess I'm going to have to be the only person to disagree with you on this one. Maybe others disagree too, but just don't want to say so.

And before you decide that I'm some redneck klansman, I should tell you that I'm a gay guy myself. I also happen to be a conservative Christian. Weird combo, huh? You can't imagine the conflicts flying around in my head! :)

Anyway, just wanted to say that not all gay people think its a good idea to screw around with what God established as the marriage covenant. And I know you could care less about my God, but that doesn't make Him any less real to me.

God established marriage as something between a man and a woman. Any variation on that is contradictory to God's plan. As a non-believer, you may be able to dismiss this as non-important, but I don't see how anyone who considers themselves to be a Christian can see it your way. Since our nation was founded on Christian principles, I think it is great that GWB is taking the stand he has chosen. I don't believe he will be successful, unfortunately. And as a result, our country will take one more step toward the abyss of sin that has destroyed so many great nations in history.

Anyway, thats the view from one fag. Even though we disagree on this (and most other political points), I still love ya dude! Keep on keepin' on!

Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe.

Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe.

Thanks, Wil. As a person in a committed relationship who has chosen not to be legally married because so many people I know and cherish cannot be, it's great to read someone as well-written as you on this subject. Keep the courage of your convictions, it's why we come back to the site day after day.

Very well said Wil. I was actually about to post the article from Andrew Sullivan in my LJ because I felt it was very well said.

I cannot believe that anyone, even our jackass president (as much I hate & distrust him) would think to do such a thing. Open discrimination is NOT acceptable. I just hope my fellow Americans can see this.

If they do not, then I think I will move to Canada.

I believe Bush is wrong as well. I believe in God too, but you know what, the Bible is NOT THE LAW! I say let those of any race, religion, sexuality, creed, be bound with whatever makes them happy,and if gays and lesbians want to marry, I say go for it. Wil is right it wont affect the marriage between and men and women, it is they themselves that will break it or make it. Let's stop finding ways to degrade our fellow americans, let's rise above these filthy politics and be humans. "All men were created equal", so does that mean we all should be treated differently, I don't think that is the context meant to be interpreted by that statement! I am neither republican nor democratic, however it plays no role what level I believe politically, it is the human concept that scares and worries me the most. What have we come too when we can't have a say in who we marry, who we fall in love with. Today it is is gay and lesbian marriage, tomorrow it might be your marriage or life someone is trying to dictate. Let us end the insane crimes against humanity!!

Wil, I hate to break it to you, but Andrew Sullivan is not an ultra-conservative. He's conservative on some issues, such as the war, but liberal on cultural issues. You probably have a lot more in common with him politically than you think.

And, since Sullivan is gay, his opinion on the issue is probably more a reflection of his personal life than of conservative ideology.

Please note that I not saying that gays do not have a right to be heard or to be taken seriously on this issue. All I am saying is that because of his personal stake in the issue, Sullivan's views tend to be different from those of most conservatives.

Now, you may ask, what is a conservative like me (I supported the war, I oppose same sex marriage, etc.) doing reading your blog? Well, for one thing, I'm a Star Trek fan. I've met you at conventions, and you seem like I nice guy. You're a talented writer, and generally enjoy reading what you write, even when you sometimes go off on topics where I disagree with you.

I'm not going to boycott you or try to retract the donation I made to help cure leukemia, just because you happen to disagree with me politically. I'm a reasonable guy, and I know that reasonable people can differ on things.

But it would be nice if you could acknowledge that maybe -- just maybe -- some of the people who disagree with you about gay marriage might do so out of something other than "hatred, bigotry, and ignorance."

This doesn't belong in the Constitution pure and simple. It takes rights away from people. In the history of the Constitution, only one other amendment has ever taken rights away from people...and it also happens to be the only amendment which was ever repealed: the 18th, Prohibition. All the other amendments have either enumerated additional rights (such as granting the vote to blacks, women, and 18-year-olds) or clarified procedural matters (such as the 12th Amendment, fixing the bugs in the way Presidents and Vice-Presidents are elected, or the 20th which changed the day that terms start, or the one clarifying Presidential succession and disability). So a "Federal Marriage Amendment" just doesn't belong there, purely on grounds of being consistent with what has come before.

Which is not to say that I don't oppose this idea on moral grounds as well. A member of my family is gay, and I want him to find the same kind of happiness I found in my marriage. How is my marriage, or anyone else's, threatened if he wants to marry another guy? Because they can't have kids in the biological way? Neither can my wife; she had a hysterectomy years before I met her, and I knew about it long before we pledged to marry...does that somehow make MY marriage less "legitimate"? Does OUR marriage "threaten" anyone else's as a result?

Anyway, my other thought is, WTF is Bush doing by proposing this NOW? THERE'S A WAR ON, in case he hadn't noticed! Worrying about who can get married and who can't, when there's still a major threat of Americans getting KILLED by Islamofascist terrorists, is, in my view, morally equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Neither gay nor straight people are going to be too concerned about whether they can marry or not, if they're DEAD! So, Mr. President, I say, "First things first!"

Awesome Wil! Just wanted to let you know that the Americans who support gay rights have the support of a huge number of Canadians!

I am a pretty conservative person, normally, and agree with everything you wrote. Bush will lose in November and this issue is why; unless he changes his mind between now and then...and even then, he will probably still lose just for coming out in support of this.

I am also in the minority, unfortunately it IS the minority opinion, and have no problem with same sex couples getting married. What's the big deal? How does it hurt me or my marriage? Will we all turn into a pillar of salt if gay people are treated as equals? How ignorant! I think people who have a problem with same-sex marriages not only are bigoted towards gay and lesbians but also don't have enough to do or think about so they create problems in their heads. They are unhappy with themselves and with the choices or non-action they have taken and are looking for someone to blame. I say we leave the gay community ALONE, for pete's sake! Let them live their lives and we should live ours.

Hey I am standing here
I am not beside you
Don't look for me behind you
Just know
I am standing here
And I am standing here with you

Thank you. Lots. It's important that people say this.

One of the things I plan to do when I have the gay marriage fight with my father is ask him how his marriage has been destroyed in the past few weeks.

Both sides of this argument have unclean hands. I don't support wasting political capital on this, because it (amending the constitution) is too much of a hot button issue. But while I would rather get the state out of the entire marriage business, the gay acceptance movement isn't saintly either.

They are hypocritical; you will hear, "we just want to be able to do the same things as everyone else", but when that is offered in civil unions, you see clamoring for the word marriage. You hear "we just want to be left alone" and the same person clamors to be first in front of the TV camera.

Bush was provoked into calling for this. His call for an amendment was just as empty as the illegal marriage licenses being granted in SanFran, and nothing is going to come from either of them. But the illegal acts being conducted in SanFran are the very things that will damage the image of gays in America to the point that something like an FMA can be passed.

On top of all of it, this does have the potential to spark a constitutional crisis on the level of Dred Scott for the exact same reasons. You will have one state being forced to recognize a legal status from another state that is patently illegal in that state. At that point, it becomes a federal issue, and we may get an amendment whether we want it or not. And at this point, gay marriage is down 60/40 and doesn't stand a chance. A constitutional crisis would be the very thing that prompts people like me who just don't care to support an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The last time, when there was no chance of doing that, we fought a civil war over it.

Amen, Wil!

This is the most disgusting abuse of the constitution in our nation's history, and it's nothing more than a political maneuver.

Wil, I know you were reluctant to post this - thanks for doing it. Everything you said was right on target. Tell you what - I'll buy *two* copies of "Just A Geek" to compensate for any loss in sales resulting from this, ok? :) Cheers - Paul

Wil, you said a mouthful.
Consider me a re-re-affirmed admirer.

I do wish the people who think that marriage has always been one man and one woman wauld read their Bibles. Solomon was a polygamist. Other cultures have had multi-partner marriages over the millennia, such as Ireland (even during the early centuries after its conversion to Christianity, taking multiple wives was allowed by law). Both Christianity and Judaism have polygamous pasts. Islam has a polygamous present. Other cultures just haven't given two farts in a windstorm about two men or two women sharing their lives together. History says diversity has been noted and accepted. Why some people can't is an exercise for a psychiatrist, not me.

I live in Oz, and I think that the sooner you Americans dump that poor sad excuse of a president, the better off the world will be. I thought the UN was made to protect the world from people like him!

Well said, well quoted, well done! You took what I was thinking and put it amazingly well, Wil.

One of the big things that bugs me about this issue is how much the conservatives scream about the "sanctity of marriage." A quick glance at the statistics for divorce, adultery and domestic violence will put to rest any thoughts that heterosexual marriage has some kind of sanctity that can't be found elsewhere. Marriage in itself is just a symbol; it's what the couple puts into it that matters. The sanctity they're talking about comes from love, not marriage.

I agree that the government does not belong in marriage. They don't get involved with baptism, communion, confirmation... why this particular sacrament? Because sex is involved?

Say no to Bush, kids... anyone who claims to back a reduction in government while at the same time uses the government to impose his own moral standards on the entire populace does not deserve to lead. Bush will leave you alone to live your life as long as it's a life he approves of. It won't end here. Use your vote.

Well said! Thank you!

While President Bush has endorsed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, he did leave open the possibility of individual states crafting Civil Union legislation. Some posters here have stated this would be an acceptable compromise. As a gay citizen of these United States, I hearby declare that Civil Unions are completely unacceptable unless they are recognized by the Federal government and given the same standing as marriages.

Back when the "Defense of Marriage Act" was being rushed through Congress in the wake of the ruling from the Hawaii Supreme Court, the General Accounting Office of the United States was requested to document what laws were on the books that were related to marriage. They found over one thousand such laws, laws that gave special rights, privileges, and responsibilities to legally married persons. A summary of the report can be found here (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) in PDF format. That's just a listing of the affected areas of the body of law and it goes on for 75 pages. It does not list the text of the laws. That would probable go on for thousands of pages.

When a state, such as Vermont (currently the only state to recognize any form of Civil Union), grants gay couples the right to form Civil Unions, presumably all of the rights granted by that state to married couples now would apply to those joined in Civil Union. (Presumably, but not guaranteed.) However, and this is the big problem, no matter how carefully and completely the legislation is drafted by the states, none of the Federal laws granting rights, privileges, and responsibilities will apply. None.

Unless Congress writes Civil Unions into all of the over one thousand places in Federal law where marriage is current recognized, Civil Unions will continue to be inherently unequal.

I agree with your comments, Wil. I do believe this amendment will have difficulty getting out of Congress. However, if it goes to the States, I think it's going through quickly.

I've written my Congressmen and State legislators to voice my opposition to any amendment. I recommend everyone who feels strongly about this to do the same. Make your voice heard.

I just want to add a thought here: I don't see a problem with people who disagree affirming their right to disagree. Where I have problems is with flamewars and all that crap.

I think that it's FANTASTIC that people are talking about this, and I realize that some people simply won't change their minds, and see things the way I do. That's okay. As a matter of fact, that's really important.

I just want to make it clear that dissenting opinions are respected, as long as they are presented in a respectful manner.

Like I said, we as a nation need to confront this issue, and if my stupid website can stimulate some dialogue, I think that's a good thing.

I'm Canadian, and I agree with you 100% and am sure my friends and family have been subjected to my opinion on this many times over. Canada has had the same issues going on for a while now. Ontario has allowed Same sex marriages, but Ralph Klein out in alberta has the same veiw as Bush. I normal have backed Ralph Klein in most of the things he has done for Alberta and have looked past his drinking problem and other such media slashing that has been done, but why is same sex marriages any of the governments concern. Yeah I respect that Bush and Klein have an opinion and that they stand by it but that they are trying to force their opinions on others is unacceptable. The thing that worries me most about it is the fact that the youth of today don't turn out for voting like they should. That the percentage is down. So the people who do vote, like our parents and grandparents are the one's who's has the higher percentage of perticipation in voting and they are the one's who will most likely have the old school views and closed minded opinions on subjects like same sex marriages.

My hat's off to you Will and I will defend my reading your blog till my dieing day!

while I consider myself more of a centrist, it blows me away that GW would want to ammend the constitution. That's just too extreme, especially since his argument for the ammendment is based on his religous beliefs. This will backfire on him. People from all sides of the political spectrum are opposed to this. who cares if gays marry? really? who cares? GW needs to get with the times. This is the type of shit we usually go to war to stop.

Thank you. Very well spoken. I just don't understand how me marrying my partner (which I will be doing on March 31st at 2pm) will affect any other marriage in the universe. Marriage is a commitment between two people.

Good lord--"ultraconservative"? Do people even *think* for themselves? Sullivan is far from "ultraconservative".

Otherwise, good post.

I'm with you, Wil. Marriage should never have been part of governments agenda. It wasn't when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established, and it shouldn't be now. The problem is, government put their hands into it a long time ago, and now (especially with the tax credit for married couples who were unfairly bearing more of the tax burden) marriage has become a hotbed of political issue. Why? It's an agreement between 2 people to share responsibility for their household (and children, if applicable). That's all it should be, as far as the government is concerned.
The problem with Mr. Bush (and most of the'religious right') is that his religious rhetoric and bible-thumping causes enmity for almost all Christians, whether they subscribe to his agenda or not. And the funny thing is, for most true Christians who subscribe to the Bible's tenets, most of the Bush agenda flies in the face of Christ's teachings! As a Christian humanist, I have found it appalling that we became the first strike, take revenge country that would go forth "in God's name" to eliminate terrorism without so much as adequate proof or support of our neighbors! What happened to "turn the other cheek"? or even better, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who hurt you." I never heard these teachings of Jesus come from George Bush's mouth in the months before our invasion of Iraq. And now he want's to vault us back to the Middle Ages and start denying rights to anyone who's different? His (supposed) Lord would say that we need to spend time with those who are different than ourselves, and that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Yes, I'm a believer in Christ and his Word and teachings, but not in the Pro-War, anti-gay, up with the Corporate Rich Bush religion. And it scares me that so many people who are believers in Christ can support him with such disregard of the facts. Kinda sounds like the Anti-Christ that Jesus warned of, and that takes control in the book of Revelation. Scary.

Keep up the good fight, Wil! I love to read your blog everyday!

Right on Wil; and I'm not saying that out of my "idolization" of you, as David D. would have you think.
What blows me away are the polls, and how in favor of proposed change they are. Unbelievable.
I wish I could be more confident about GWB getting outed in Nov.

I wonder... what he was thinking.
The only people he didn't alienate today where biggots.
Does he really think that there are THAT many biggots left in this country that he will win the election by doing this and winning their votes?
If by some odd chance he does win this election, what does that say about the american people?
Is there still that much hate and intolerance out there?
I really hope not.

Every post like this that you make increases my respect for you 10 fold..

Keep it up!

An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!

And so is mine. But my mother's is not. Thanks a million for a well-thought and educational post. As a proud child of a lesbian, I thank you.

I love your site Wil! And I love that you post your opinions not matter what!

I quote from a preceding post:

"But the illegal acts being conducted in SanFran are the very things that will damage the image of gays in America to the point that something like an FMA can be passed."

Hmmm. I suppose Rosa Parks and those like her did not accomplish anything? Every time a group stands up for equality, the country cries "we're doomed!" Illegal acts, like those in San Fran must occur for discrimination in the law to be abolished. Ms. Parks illegal act ended with the law siding with her.

Rock on, Wil. The only threat to my marriage is from those idiots in congress.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Look at interracial marriage. Back in 56 when Virginia and some of the first states started performing interracial marriages, it was basically banned, looked down upon and considered a huge threat to "marriage" and so on. All the same stuff being said now about gay marriage.

Now, I'm free to marry an asian or black or white or whatever. Big whoopie.

Will it take another 50 years before homosexuals are able, as taxpaying, responsible, working citizens in this society, to have all its benefits as well?

You're absolutely right: This is about discrimination and hate, and I'm glad you and others get it. Hate needs to be left at the curb.

David Dickerson,
I do not know if you will read this, but I feel I need to post it anyway. Your devotion to your beliefs is as admirable as Wil's is to his. You have approached your argument in a rational fashion, and I think you've done it quite a service. But there's still a problem.
Regardless of whether or not you believe in God - or whether or not any of us do, for that matter - it is not our President's job to defend that. Our government is supposed to be completely separated from religion. It is not Bush's job to defend the sanctity of anything. It is completely inappropriate for him to even suggest that.
Yes, this argument has been turned by some into a Left vs. Right issue, but if you stop to think about it, it isn't. It shouldn't be a political issue at all. This is not our government's job. Your church has every right to refuse to marry Gay couples if that is against your beliefs. But our government is not supposed to involve itself in that.
Anyway, I'm glad that you've shown the courage to voice your opinion, especially since you knew, beforehand, that it might garner negative responses. What makes our country great is that we have the ability to voice dissenting opinions. (Unless they violate the Patriot Act...) You may all now go back to your regularly scheduled programming.

NWW

Great post, Wil. My best friend works at an LGBT community center in Buffalo, NY (www.pridecenterwny.org), and she deals with the repercussions of unequal rights every day --- custody of children, death benefits, insurance coverage, health care, and so much more.

I completely respect everyone's religious beliefs. But they shouldn't have anything to do with the law. If a church or religion doesn't accept same-sex marriages, then that's fine. But that shouldn't have anything to do with the legal institute of marriage.

Thanks for taking a stand on this, Wil, and opening it up for discussion.

Bravo, Wil!

Thanks for re-establishing my believe that there actually are Americans with brains. I live in Germany, and everything that I heard and saw comming from America while GWB was usurper of the presidency made me really scared of your country and the people living there.

If those fundamental-christians want to live in a christian theocracy, why don't they live in the Vatican-State???
I do not care what religion a person has, as long as he or she doesn't try to make me live according to their religious laws, which clearly are not MY laws. I guess a lot of Americans are with me on this one.

Marriage should be open to all people, no matter whom they love. Is my love second class because I love a woman? I don't think so.
Marriage has not been invented by the christian church, so, please, to all those fundamental-christians out there: stop acting as if you are the ones who have a right to grant this right to some people and deny it to others.

Wow. Exactly. Abso-freaking-lutely exactly!

Last week I took my ten year old son to SF City Hall to show support for the folks waiting in line to get married. We brought snacks, and chocolate, and water, and other goodies. Mostly we brought smiling faces.

It was fabulous in many, many ways. One unexpected way (sadly) was that he was suitably horrified to see the messages of hate on the protester's signs. He just plain couldn't GET it ... Good. I'm glad he doesn't get that.

What you wrote was, as always, incredibly eloquent and to the point, and pertinent.

Your book isn't going to suffer because of this, Wil. You're a genuine human being, and those who care about genuine human beings will still be interested in your writings - even the ones they'll have to pay for. Thanks so much for putting those thoughts into such well-spoken words.

Funny - my marriage hasn't suffered a bit from the marriages across the bay either!

Oh, yeah. Personally, I support equal rights for all. :) Excellent post, Wil. And wonderful comments, all.

hi wil! i think your career will be okay. now, this is what i feel: i am christian, i believe in the bible, and i believe it is WRONG WRONG WRONG to discriminate against, and reflect hate or disapproval to homosexuals or anyone. i agree with you, politically or legally preventing gay marriage does say it's okay to relegate homosexuals to second class citizens and that's unbelievable in this day and time. haven't americans figured out yet what happens when you do this? hopefully we'll get it soon!

Thank you. Always stand up for what you believe--we'll be around.

Another good take on this was Bill Maher's Valentine's Day op-ed.

Unfortunately, I have realized recently than in supporting gay marriage, I am very much in the minority in the U.S. I wish that weren't so. I doubt it would change anyone's feelings on the subject, but perhaps one thing we could do is reframe the debate (and remove many of the Republican "objections") by not calling state-sanctioned marriages--between whomever--"marriage," since that *is* a religious term. State-sanctioned unions should *all* be called civil unions, between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. And all couples should have the same *civil* rights--inheritance, health decisions, tax (dis)advantages, adoption, etc etc etc. If a couple chooses to also have a religious "marriage" that should be up to them and whatever religion they adhere to.

We are no doubt heading for a Constitutional crisis--the Defense of Marriage Act is patently unconstitutional since it is in opposition to the full faith and credit clause (says states have to recognize each others rules--why if you get married in Texas, you're still married if you move to Cali). And marriage is clearly reserved as a "states' rights" issue vs a matter for the federal government. Having a consitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage (unions, whatever) is the only way around this, legally, though morally it's abhorrent.

I worry that such an emendment does have a chance of being approved in the current climate. But I also pray that it would eventually become the second amendment ever to be repealed.

Right on, Wil!

I love it when gay marriage opponents claim that God says gay marriages are wrong. Using that logic, I think I'll sell my daughter off into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. Why not? It's in the Bible!

Cool post, Wil. Never be afraid to stand up for what you believe in! You set a good example for us all.

Excellent post Wil.

As an attorney, I would encourage everyone to read Loving v. Virginia, 1967 Supreme Court case. (Just Google it.) It is a short but enlightening read.

He's going to realize he's gone too far with this one when even the most hardline of his supporters are telling him he's out of his fucking tree!

Some of the things going on in this country right now frighten me, but I will not give up hope.

A few comments:
1) Bravo, Wil.
2) For those who are swallowing the line that the proposed amendment will still allow states to establish civil unions, read the text:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[emphasis added]
...in other words, no marriage for homosexuals, and nothing that confers the same legal rights either. Don't believe the lies.

3) For the Christians out there who believe that all good Christians must be against homosexuality because of the bible, this should be an interesting read.

Thank you.

Seperate but equal doesn't work for race or gender so I don't see why people think it should work for sexual orientation, either.

Thank you for your post today! I couldn't agree more if I'd written this myself. I love what you said 'An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!' Amen!

Gorgon,

Bush's "support" for marriages and civil unions is support for "separate but equal" treatment.

Get real.

Many people of all orientations are not happy with "civil unions" because those unions DO NOT provide the same rights as "marriage" does. There is more difference bewteen the two than just the sex of those involved.

Marriage is a unique legal contract and is recognized by governments around the world. Marriage creates between two people a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. A civil union is a legal status which is provided by the state. Civil unions provide legal protection to couples at the STATE level, but do not come with any FEDERAL protections. This is a very important distinction.

When a married couple moves from state to state, they know that their status will be respected and they will be provided the same rights and priveleges due to that status. A couple bond by a civil union does not have that assurity of freedom. Partners in a civil union cannot take leave from work to care for their partner, sponsor their partner for immigration purposes, nor recieve Social Security survivor benefits. Because civil unions are not recognized federally, these couples face problems regarding taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and programs such as Medicaid. Even something as simple as filling out a form requesting your marital status causes problems. Technically, civil unions create a single family unit, so these partners are not single. However, they are not married either and their claiming that status would be considered fraud.

So, yes, there IS a major problem with civil unions. Haven't we learned that there's no such thing as "separate but equal"?

As a Member of another "Minority". I have nothing but praise for Wil!

Hey Wil if you ever run for President I'll Win you Texas!

Seriously. The Republicans are all about division among america to gain strength. And they not only use it against gays but syill use it against other minorities.

If I had my way bush would be banished from Texas for all time!

Thanks so much for the amazing post, Wil. I'm a lesbian and a very devoted stay at home Mom... my partner is a dentist. I think that what everyone forgets is that we all pay taxes, we gays and lesbians contribute to society just as much as a straight person, so why shouldn't we have the same rights? I also think they forget about the little part of the constitution that defines a separation of church and state. You can't legislate morality, and I wish they'd keep their morals out of my bedroom, because it's no one's business but mine.
Also, all this mud-slinging about gays not being right, blah blah blah... I'm sorry, but before this all started. you didn't see Gays and Lesbians attacking the right wingers saying "They're not right! Immoral sinners, burn in hell!!" We just wanted to live our lives, raise our children and be left alone. Unfortunatly, GW and Marilynn Musgrave have now made that impossible.
Anyway, thank you so much for the support, and thanks again for the eloquent post.

I have been with my partner for over five years. We have three children. We had a commitment ceremony four years ago because we felt there was importance in standing in front of family and friends and publicly declaring our commitment to each other.

I have so much to say on this issue, I just don't know where to start. But, I'm going to save it for my elected officials. This is not an issue our politicians need to waste time on right now. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are without permanent families, and Bush takes time to talk about THIS? I could go on about this country's ill's that need attention, but that's not the point.

Thank you, Wil.

Thank GOD! A voice of reason - no one has the right to tell anyone else - especially in our wonderful land of freedom - who you can and cannot love. Government should stay out of people's bedrooms and worry about healthcare, education, and getting us out of a war we should never have been in.

Run for president Wil! I'd vote for ya!

Most everything I would like to say has been said, so I'll just say "thank you" to Wil for posting and to everyone else for keeping it polite. It shouldn't matter to anyone else if two consenting adults of any gender wish to make their relationship official in the eyes of the law.

Interesting post. Last night's Daily Show had on a guy who wrote a book called Bush Country (I think). The Daily Show site should have the video up in a week or so, but it was a very interesting interview, suggesting that Bush isn't as stupid as he looks, but treats America as stupid. For example, rather than telling us that "We need a bastion of democracy in the Middle East," he'd say "Iraq has WMDs." Bush can be as wrong as you think he is, but the key is not to call him an idiot or Hitler or a moron. I'm voting for whoever can get him out of office, but I don't see him as stupid, just wrong.

Interestingly, the Onion's new issue has a good articl eno this topic: "Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry" - http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

It is the ramblings of people with a large audience (notice I didn't say celebrity) that are dividing Americans against one another.

This is accomplished by lumping everything that occurs in society as being the fault of one of the two major political parties.
Republican vs. Democrat cannot be neatly described as right vs. wrong.
I get the feeling that Wil's political views are blindly democratic. It is this blind support (be it republican and democrat) that is driving a wedge between the two parties and this can cause more harm than good since we are no longer working together to make this country better. It seems more effort is made bitching about the other party's views versus working to mend those fences and working as a team.

I like this blog. It's always good reading. I have even donated to the marathon Wil is in. Just quit the political pissing and moaning and offer solutions to the problems you mention and bitch about.

My thoughts exactly, Wil!

I could never understand how or why people could be hurt by other people loving each other.

I just hope this sparks our generation to get off our collective butts and take some action. We can not let this adminstration get away with tearing our country apart!

-al

Well said, Wil. You just exercized your freedom of speech as stated on Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. :^)

I read somewhere that the Declaration of Independence was the promise of a new country and that the Constitution was the fulfillment of the promise -- or something along the lines of that. Yes, America became nation because people were fleeing religious persecution from Great Britain. Why add something that discriminates and favors a religious view? What happened to equality for all and the separation of church and State? Yes, I did not vote for GW.

P.S.
I asked a librarian about the possibility of the amendment passing. She didn't think it would pass. As someone above stated, 2/3 of both the House and Senate must approve the proposed amendment -- not an easy thing to do. There is also a time limit on how long the proposed amendment can be on the floor. Something like seven(?) years.

(upon decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada) "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Elliot Trudeau

The man was a bit of a wing-nut, but at least he was a forward thinker.

Good post wil

I couldn't agree with you more!! I can't wait to get Bush out of office. Grrrr. You said it best, Wil!

*claps* I think it's great when people stand up for what they believe in no matter what the consequence may be. If it helps, you have my full support. :D

*claps* I think it's great when people stand up for what they believe in no matter what the consequence may be. If it helps, you have my full support. :D

I've said it once and then again.... If you can't beat 'em, we have plenty of space up north in Canada... Come one come all! lol

Cheers,

P

Is it any wonder a lameduck president came out against gay marriage? I was not surprised by it he's very much being led by the nose.

If the majority of people in this country said 'eh, we don't give a crap... let gay people be married just as straight people are with all the benefits the law provides a married couple,' GW would be going right along with it.

However, since a great many people have an issue with gay marriage and are so very vocal about it GW has no choice... he has no spine... he MUST side with the loudest mouths and denounce gay marriage to the fullest. To do otherwise could cost him in November.

He knows it and I hope those who support him know it too.

This isn't about saving the sanctity, the definition or the institution of marriage. That's a smokescreen to give the impression that he really gives a damn about any of those things. Fact is, all Bush cares about is not becoming a one term president.

Hell, if people were hopped up mad and this pissed off nutso about the lack of jobs, Bush would speak to it. However, people aren't up in arms over that but gay people getting married... dammit! that'll destroy the whole country!!!

The very idea of taking what Bush says "troubles" him and seeking to ban it by altering the constitution sickens me. It's so homophobic it is beyond words and I just wish he'd come right on out and admit he's homophobic and get it done with. That's what is at the heart of this. Gay marriages won't destroy the definition of anything but rather enhance and improve it to what it should already be... a union of two people that love eachother.

That anyone could make an argument against gay marriage and make an argument for discrimination... it boggles the mind. To be the most intelligent species I am constantly amazed, on a daily basis, just how stupid so many of us are.

To fellow WWdN monkeys--

I posted very early in the day. I am thrilled to see how unhappy most readers about Dubya's anti-gay marriage stance. (I figured Wil was in for some flaming, as he himself feared.)

While Wil's Posse may not be representative of the overall US popualtion (or the voters therein), I can only hope the "prevailing sentiment" here means that Dubya has sealed his electoral fate. Bye-Bye Bush!

Your thoughts are welcome at www.CloseTheBooks.com. You can post publicly to my Guest Book ("personal" pages) or write me privately via link at top of résumé ("professional" pages). Thanks!

--Allan French, Silicon Valley, CA

Thanks for posting this, Wil, and for providing a place for reasoned discussion to occur among all parties and all viewpoints.

I went up to SF City Hall on President's Day to help folks get married, not for any agenda, gay, striaght, liberal, conservative. I just went because people wanted to get married and helping them was the right thing to do.

Folks wishing to read about it further are welcome to do so. http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmjwell/287952.html

Thank you Wil, for taking a stand on this issue. I'm not a terribly eloquent guy, so I'm just gonna say I (and countless others) appreciate it.

You rock, and I have no doubt you will continue to rock.

To any and all who say, "That amendment will never pass." I say this.

As long as there is the slightest fraction of a chance that the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America will be constrained by an amendment to said Constitution, then the risk is too high to not fight.

Our complacency is a weapon of our opponents that we have the power to control. Don't let them have it.

Helen

Amen.

<rant>

Meh, who knows if anyone will get down this far (127th post?!?) As a resident of the Metro-Boston area, I can tell you how fed up I am with this whole issue. I'm glad Kerry came out against a constitutional ammendment, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a national politial figure who's willing to stand up in support of gay marraige here. Every one (Kerry included) just go on and on about "Well I think everyone should have the same rights, civil unions are okay, but I'm against *marraige*." Like they're afraid of losing those votes if they actually came out and admitted supporting gay rights and gay marraiges.

Honestly, we're darn lucky our State Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, or no one would have the guts to stand up for what's right.

The Constitution doesn't say you have to make friends with a black man, nor like him. It says you must allow him to vote, you must count him in the Census, and you must not interfere with *his* other rights. Similarly, if gays get married you don't have to associate with the