Joan Walsh, in judging the issue based solely in the context of personal relationships, utterly fails to make a valid political judgment based on the REALITY ON THE GROUND - AFTER Gay/Lesbians have obtained the right as in Mass., or equivalent rights in civil unions in Vermont or in Canada or in Europe.

They do NOT use that right to any significant degree.

Once they get it, after the initial flurry of protest weddings are over, the #s of gays and lesbians marrying drops through the floor.

Once GAY men and Lesbians have received this right, it simply fails to matter any more. So few exercise it.

Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics there have been only 9,695 total “gay marriages” in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Governor Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the “gay marriage” novelty toy still had its sheen.

In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the “gay-pride” plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that qu**r little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 “gay” couples had “married” in Massachusetts.

Even more telling — though not particularly surprising — are statistics coming out of Canada where “gay marriage” is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto — which boasts of having one of the world’s largest homosexual populations —only one Canadian “gay” couple has “married” so far this year, according to a report by Reuters.

While recently addressing the rapidly downward spiral in homosexual “marriages” in Massachusetts and elsewhere, Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America, observed,

Gay people ARE NOT exercising this right after they get it. Such low #s of utilization clearly indicates that in terms of priorities for any political party, this belongs near the bottom of the list.

Do I believe they/we should be able to marry, sure.

The Democratic party should NOT make support of this a priority nor spend any valuable political capital supporting the position.

The results show clearly there is NO RETURN on investment for such efforts.

Obama's position is the politically smart, and correct one, based on the abysmal use of the right once granted to gays and lesbians.

Political capital is hard to come by any day. Its use should be geared towards obtaining the most for the most people who are going to actually USE the benefits they gain.

LUCKILY for the Democrats the forces aligned against, the deep feelings of antithapy, and mistrust re: Republican beliefs, agenda Etc. is so utterly overwhelming they will not be able to use gay marraige against Democrats.

Their previous success was tied to their now eviscerated reputation as the "morality party."

Now that facade has crumbled, they'd make little headway convincing people Obama secretly supports it, despite his public commitment to civil unions as they did to Kerrey.

The catholic church does not recognize divorces, but catholics still divorce. The church has every right not to sanction marriage if it chooses to, but marriage is not a religious ceremony only!

that this decision came from a Court comprised of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges? We all know that the gay marriage issue was one of the horses that the Repubs rode all the way to the White House. But lately, that issue has paled in the light of the economy, the war, etc.

Now in a single ruling, Republican judges have managed to revitalize the wedge. Coincidence? What better way to rally the righties to once again vote against their best interests and the best interest of the country than to poke a gay marriage stick into an old wound. After all, these folks needed a reminder that a few gays committed to loving relationships threaten the very foundation of marriage for the rest of us. (Pay no attention to that 49% heterosexual divorce rate behind the curtain.)

There's a wonderful parody on YouTube called "Hillary Clinton's Sunset Boulevard."

Enjoy it at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWaL1XnUPN0

I don't see how they can blame this on the Democrats when three out of the four judges who voted to overturn the ban are Republicans.

@ David Graf

I wonder why is everybody celebrating?

Because, the supreme court of the state of california upheld its end of American-style democracy and did its job.

Given the very real possibility that gay marriage will be banned again and rights given to same-sex couples will be revoked in November through a referendum, why is everybody celebrating? If you don't think it couldn't happen - ask the gays/lesbians in 26 other states where the state constitutions were amended to ban gay marriages. Need I add that this gives the GOP an issue to rally the faithful and possibly give us four more years of Bush's policies. Again - I wonder why is everybody celebrating?

God bless your mother, BryanS. I was talking about myself.

And anyone who read this post primarily as a slam on Barack Obama needs to take a wider view of what's at stake. It might be helpful to read the piece I linked to from four years ago, which ironically mentioned Obama with enormous admiration, which I still feel. But this is what I believe about gay marriage, and have believed since February 2003. I was disappointed in Clinton, too, and I said that first. I don't work for the Obama campaign, or the Democratic party.

My bad!

The "smugness" comment and the "respectfully" admonition were meant to my liberal friends in general. I see tho that I left you no way to glean it wasn't directed at you personally.

That said, the whole smug, we're-on-the-side-of-angels attitude of progressives justifying judicial end-runs and politcal fiats has just got to stop. If the question is the quickest way to gay marriage in a large number of states, my suggestion is dialogue, dialogue respectfully aimed at those with conservative values (rather than at bigots). Or would Dems prefer simply to keep flailing but feeling superior?

Over at National Review today there is a thread questioning whether whether social conservatism is still viable. Check it out. Many Republicans feel like me that gay marriage is plainly covered under the Constitution. The opportunity for persuasion is riper than you think.