of course same-sex advocates are going to lose. That's because marriage is a religious artifact institutionalized as part of secular society. Instead, under the concept of separation of church and state, leave marriage as a private religious ceremony, meaningful to only those in that faith. apply all the current legal benefits instead to civil union. that way, the same-sex community can get their legal benefits and, if their faith allows, they can be married.

the benefits of a state "licensed" mariage. As far as I can tell the only thing extra you get that can't be taken care of by a private contract is the ability to file a joint tax return.

Because homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with despising nontraditionally gendered people. Please. Not only has gender inversion historically been used to define homosexuality-- a lesbian is a man in a woman's body, a gay man is a woman in a man's body-- but even in these enlightened days to be a man who fails or chooses not to perform traditional masculinity is to be vulnerable to violence. Sissy, girlyboy, nancyboy... these are terms which signal gender nonconformity and homosexuality. The same goes for "mannish" women. To say that gay rights can be separated from challenges to "traditional" gender roles is ridiculous when so much of homophobia is motivated by the need to police gender roles. Yes, two married women or men challenge traditional gender roles-- thank god!-- and create more room for everyone in these institutions. So to say that the desire to ban gay marriage is the same as the desire to protect "traditional" gender roles... is still homophobic and anti-feminist.

As Page notes, the state stepping in to maintain traditional gener roles is seriously creepy. So creepy in fact, I resisted getting married to my partner (male) for 22 years. After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, I no longer had any objections. We got married. I was in a tulle veil and he was in a tux. Our marriage license says "Appicant A" and "Appicant B", IT IS PERFECT!

If people need the state to tell them that they get to be a bride and groom, then I have to wonder if they are actually mature enough to get married. I mean come on people, grow up.

At any rate, this all feels to me like a last gasp of desperation on the part of the anti-gay marriage folks. Their arguements are foolish and make them seem like children who need a parent, a Daddy (read the State) to give them the okay to be a bride or a groom.

Frankly, I think the solution is to take all the States out of the business of marriage altogether. The State should only be able to certify civil unions (gay or straight)and it should be left to the various religious institutions to confer marriage. I believe we will eventually get there, we just have some ugly mud to trudge through until we get there.

At first read, I scoffed at Richard Thompson Ford's theory...but reading further, there may be something to it. Every once in a while, someone straight will ask me, "Which of you is the man?" (We're both women.) They mean which one of us "wears the pants", does the traditionally male activities (primarily they're asking about non-bedroom activities, except for that one weird conversation with my ex...but that's another matter). Some seem genuinely puzzled. When I explain we share responsibilities based on our skills and talents and note that they don't always call into traditionally gender-segmented roles, some get it, others don't. (She's more mechanically inclined and has much better math skills, I'm better at cooking and I knit. But I'm better with the critters, playing sports and at carrying heavy items.)

All of this is neither here nor there. The bottom line is that people oppose issues such as gay marriage out of fear. (OK, granted a bunch are just mean-spirited jerks and others like Turd Blossom Rove are just political opportunitists.) Irrational fear to be sure. Which is why they usually just sputter when confronted with facts, figures and real gay/lesbian couples. Sometimes, such exposure can help them overcome these fears. Other times, the fears are just so deep-seated that, forget it.

The LGBT community has to continue to reach out to those who just may overcome their irrational fears. We have to continue to "live out loud"--there's Activism with a capital A and the daily-living activism of just being who we are day in and day out. Yes, we need the courts and legislatures on our side, but getting the people there is perhaps more important in the long run. Change begins at the grass roots. At the neighborhood level. In the workplace. In schools. Too often the LGBT community and our straight allies overlook the power of grassroots change.

These bans on same-sex marriage are remniscent of the bans on interracial marriage in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Whenever social change is imminent, reactionary idiots try to stop it. They always fail.

I wouldn't assume that liberals march lockstep for gay marriage - in fact, it's obvious that the left is split on gay marriage - as printed in the Times last week: even in liberal NYC, almost 35 percent of the population rejects gay marriage. In fact, if you look at the big names of the Democratic party, they all reject gay marriage, and poll after poll reveals deep splits: in MA, the only state that recognizes gay marriage, record numbers of voters signed petitions to get a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - only parlimentary mechinations kept the vote from coming to the table -good thing: if it did, supporters of gay marriage predicted they would lose. Personally I'm neither for or against gay marriage - I think this is a concern of middle class whites - the same people who have health insurance and lawyers to secure the protections for their lovers and familes - for poor gays, I can't imagine this is a big issue because it does little to help their every-day lives and is probably seen as a symbolic victory - important in the abstract, but, aside from a few protections, accomplishing little. I think this is a loser of a political issue, alienating liberals who still respect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, and no amount of revealing the double standard of failed hetro marriages will change what many see as a basic definition of the family. I would much more respect a movement to get the government out of the marriage business all together, and instead grant tax benefits and protections to head of households - I envision that any two people could define themselves in this manner, but that, of course, would never appeal to the polygamists - and this I think is what really scares the masses: how far are we willing to go in defining a family?