That helps to explain why, when I wrote my sister about how happy I was that her marriage is now legally accepted in her state, she wrote back and said, "Yeah - and I'm so bummed I wasn't working." Her biggest disappointment was not being there to catch it on film for her job. She got married already, 4 years ago. And with 2 kids, I'm sure she and my SIL have other things to deal with (like, getting dinner for the kids, reading them their nighttime book, and getting them in bed ok).

Still, the news made my week.

I wish this could be a non-story, a "dog-bites-man" in a society where marriage is marriage and the sexes of the participants were of no import. But, I guess we're a ways from that yet.

My wife and I have been married for 32 years and had a lesbian friend asked me why I got so worked up about this issue, thinking I had no dog in the fight. The point is, by allowing the powers-that-be to decide which consenting adults have, or have not, the right to marry, we all cede that right. And I'm not willing to give that to anyone without a fight.

I heard some defense of marriage type woman on the radio this morning in high dudgeon, complaining that the California court's decision classed her along with racists. My response was a simple "And???". If she doesn't want to be treated like a racist, she shouldn't act like one.

Maybe it's just me but getting married in this day and age seems...well it just seems a little gay.

And perhaps it should stay that way: A dream.

This tentative "victory" is one that will tear an even wider hole in the fiber of our society. Marriage between two men or between two women? Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is arrogant and self serving for two people of common gender to expect a reinterpretation of a tradition - indeed, in some cultures, a "sacrament" - that is so inherently fundamental and pure.

I thoroughly agree with the perspective that people don't choose to be gay. However, no one is born saying he wants to grow up to be a "junkie," either. Yet we also know that just because we are born with certain inclinations, it does not entitle us to the right to broadcast the socially unacceptable manifestations that go with them. Gay marriage is, essentially, legitimizing a perverse, unnatural act.

If gay people wish to act on their predispositions to be sexually attracted to people of their own gender, that is their right; however, gays do not have - nor should they have - the economic. social and sacred privileges that exist by virtue of marriage between a man and a woman.

I know Ugh.

congrats to all the people first of all.

but what is marriage anyways?

just another commercialized closed deal between two people..

I say screw that.

then again this is coming from me who believes

-nothing says commitment like a Porsche 911.

I live in New Zealand where gay and straight people can enter what is known as a Civil Union, which is (legally at least) pretty much the same as marriage. And so I would just like to say to all those conservatives out there that the world did not come to an end when we legalised Civil Unions, nor did it end when we legalised prostitution or decriminalised homosexuality in the first place. And I'm pretty sure the rain that fell this morning was just rain, not fire and brimstone.

Sara, I hope you get married again, and this time I hope it sticks.

One quibble:

"Conservatives have gathered more that a million signatures for a ballot measure that would amend the California constitution to make same-sex marriages illegal."

Please don't call those poor souls "conservative." They're not. They conserve nothing, other than good will towards all.

I'll tell you what's perverse:

1. Heterosexual couples who marry and -- understanding the overpopulation problems of this world, and knowing full well that many, many unwanted children remain unadopted -- still have 500 biological children.

2. People who equate the very natural, committed love between gays to drug addiction.

Homosexuality is good for this country. More gender freedom, fewer unwanted children, more inclusive love, less hate.

I want to see more gay couples, more public gay couples. Although PDA in general often goes too far, gay couples should be free to engage in a normal amount of it. It would heart-warming to see more hand-holding, more beeming, more hugging, more (hopefully PG-rated) kissing.

But at a minimum, we need to recognize gay marriage -- and keep it that way.

...a happy day in the future when this whole discussion is thought to have been quaint, if not barbaric?

Homosexuality isn't anything like drug addiction. And if you want to be a junkie and can support yourself and your habit, true conservatives wouldn't have a problem with that anyway.

And homosexuality isn't any better than heterosexuality.

It's just different.

I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages to being in a homosexual relationship aside from dealing with xenophobia every day. Just as there are advantages and disadvantages to heterosexual relationships, as there always will be until we have perfect birth control, time travel, a universal source of flawless advice, and a definition of personal happiness we can pick out when we are about 20 and keep for the rest of our lives.

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is arrogant and self serving for two people of common gender to expect a reinterpretation of a tradition - indeed, in some cultures, a "sacrament" - that is so inherently fundamental and pure.

Firstly, if tradition is so important to you, then do you want to strip women of the right to vote and re-establish slavery as well?

One must distinguish between religious and civil marriage. The California SC ruling specifically said that "limiting the designation of a marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

The question was whether or not this unequal treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples were constitutional. This has nothing to do with tradition or succumbing to bigots like you who maintain that homosexuality is "a perverse, unnatural act".

You know what's perverse? What's perverse is that any man and woman who don't love each other and marry for convenience, money, or just for the hell of it get the full legal rights that come with marriage, while two members of the same sex who love each other don't have access to those same legal rights because they're told they're second class citizens.