Wow, Joan. I can't believe you cut 1 of my posts in the "Profiles in Democratic Cowardice" letters thread and then closed down the discussion entirely. Especially since that 1 post that you cut is my explicit defense against your charges and on behalf of all my other posts in that thread. Other than my original post addressed to you, it was the most important thing I posted on that thread. And you censored it.

I am literally shocked.

That's my question. If he knew his daughter was lesbian, how could he have opposed gay marriage in the first place? Oh, well, I guess he's like Cheney in that respect. Or maybe his daughter just came out to him?

Anyway, I'm glad he did have the courage to announce publicly, on-camera that he has changed his mind on the issue of gay marriage.

I simply cannot understand those who say gay marriage would damage the institution of marriage. Would any hetero couples be forced to end their marriage and find a gay partner? Ridiculous!

Marriage is a basic right. I was talking to a friend, a lawyer as it happens. It's part of the penumbra, the basic rights that underline the rights in our nation's law. First with a case involving the rights and prisoners to marry, later with Loving vs. Virginia, the Court stated explicitly that marriage is a fundamental right.

It honestly amazes me how misunderstood something as commonplace as marriage is and I believe a lot of peoples' objections to marriage equality would evaporate if they knew what it really was.

A truly courageous act would be to remove the state (or city) from consecrating ANY marriage.

No government agency of any kind can consecrate a marriage. Only a religion can make or declare something sacred. Contrary to what the Republican base wants, we still don't live in a theocracy, so the government can't consecrate anything.

The state should not be in the business of certifying a religious ceremony.

Then you'll be happy to know that that's not what any government agency is in the business of. They're in the business of issuing marriage licenses. Nobody in the United States of America is required to have a religious marriage ceremony in order to be legally married. Those that don't are just as married as those that do.

And all principled clergy would never reject the state's credential.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but, as I read what you're saying, my answer is that we have a separation of church and state. Any religion is free to reject any couple's request to be married, regardless of the legality of their union. Why any couple would want to have a stamp of approval from a religion that hates them is beyond me, so what's the problem?

The state should remain in the business of certifying civil unions -- a legal state of affairs -- and leave marriage up to religious and social institutions.

Congratulations -- that is exactly what we have in place right now.

Except that what the state issues is called a "marriage license". That's because they're licensing marriage. What religions offer is a "marriage ceremony". That's because they have a ceremony which consecrates your legal marriage in the eyes of that religion. You can have that ceremony in conjunction with your marriage license -- or not. Your choice.

Because religions are separate from the state, they can choose to exclude you from having a ceremony with them and that's perfectly legal. But every couple should have legal access to the marriage license because anything else is un-Constitutional, anti-American, irrational, and morally and ethically indefensible.

And I understand that there are LGBT people who think we have more pressing issues. I believe those people are mistaken and for one simple reason: you get marriage, you get everything else.

Yes, some married blue collar workers in the Midwest will be fired from their jobs or otherwise made miserable and some military people will likewise suffer as the first folks in these situations get married. And they will have full legal protections with which to fight back. No, it won't be easy at first for everyone. But, yes, it's still the quickest way to arrive at full legal equality and, as such, trumps the urgency of all other concerns because it envelopes all other concerns.

My partner and I are resients of San Diego. We sent this e-mail to Mayor Sanders yesterday:

Dear Mayor Sanders,

Thank you for your courageous stand for equality yesterday. My partner Sal and I are deeply appreciative of your leadership on an issue that resonates loudly with us. I cannot begin to understand the process your went through in rethinking your position on marriage equality, but your emotional annoucement last night spoke volumes about the depth of your character. It is very easy these days to be cynical about politics when it seems that the only actions taken by elected officials have been "focus grouped" and polled to death. Last night you exhibited the kind of leadership that one just doesn't see these days and restores ones faith in our system that we do elect men and women to public office to lead society foward by doing the right thing even when that is not necessarily the popular choice.

Thank you again for your leadership in fostering equal rights for all Californians. We wish you luck with your reelection campaign. You earned two votes towards your reeletion last night.

While I'm living in the Pacific Northwest right now, I've lived most of my life in Texas and have known my fair share of gay Republicans (though even in Texas, the majority of gays are Democrats). I agree with you that it would be great if sexual orientation didn't define political affiliation. For the record, I wish pro-life/pro-choice issues didn't do so, either.

Not sure why it's a bad thing if Sanders is doing this for his daughter. Would it be better if he willingly contined to hurt her? From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with a personal connection changing people's outlook. That was Harvey Milk's whole point: come out, come out, come out because when they see we aren't monsters but their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, they will see gay people for who we really are.