I am sure this has probably been posted into oblivion, but with all the Iraq posts, I somehow didn't see one on this lately. I was talking to my pal Chase and was shocked to find that he was actually against all the "weddings" that have been taking place lately, in SF and Boston, etc. He is a strong believer that we have established a system of government that allows for a method for change, and to circumvent that method undermines the entire social structure. (This shocked me because I hadn't really thought the issues through and erroneously believed that a man who is gay would support gay marriage by fair means or foul, for lack of a better phrase.)

Therefore, I posit these questions:

1) Do you think the recent rash of gay marriages by the executive and judicial branches are good or bad and why?
They are good. They're doing it in places where the state constitution was ambiguous. The San Francisco thing was Rosa Parks-like activism.

and just to provide context for the previous response:

2) Do you believe homosexual marriage (or civil union... I don't want to debate semantics here) should be permitted or not?
Permitted. Marriage, legally, is a sociofinancial contract between two people. Not allowing certain combinations of people to sign that contract is a) a causeless infringement on liberty, and b) discrimination.

Seriously. To the future, this will seem just like the interracial marriage issue does to us. How could it not? What's the difference? For bigo--er, moral reasons, people want to put discrimination into the law and the constitution.


I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.