will be after her now too. I predict a boycott of her music and many lesbians protesting by going straight.

I am already beyond sick of hearing what a nice guy Rick Warren is--even from Juan Cole, who should know better. The man is an ideologue and a bigot, no matter what good works he does in the world and how much he says he likes gays or Muslims or puppies. He is a hate-monger, plain and simple. Stop making excuses for him! He degrades gay relationships by comparing them to incest and pedophilia. Just as bad in my book is his anti-choice stance which he buttresses with obscene references to the Holocaust. Each time he does so, he cheapens and demeans the murder of millions of people.

As for the blogger, this is simply idiotic:

"the word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on sundays are told belongs to them. like yamaka, menorah, or matzo."

1) Marriage is a secular institution as well as a religious one.

2) There is absolutely nothing sacred or holy about matzah, yarmulkahs or a menorah.

3) If matzoh belongs to people going to church on Sundays, I quit doing Pesach.

First of all, I've never seen "yarmulke" spelled yamaka. But then we get this:

"the word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on sundays are told belongs to them. like yamaka, menorah, or matzo."

O.k., people who "own" the words yarmulke, menorah, and matzo (funny, that last one -- real holy) do NOT got to church on Sundays. They usually go to temple on Saturdays, if they're observing Jews.

"he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat."

Uh, I don't think Rick Warren wants to wear a yarmulke. Does he even own one??

But I do get the message she's trying to send. I just think this particular way of putting it makes her look mighty uneducated.

He denies reality:

1. Biblical marriage has NOT been one man one woman. Plenty of polygamy, widow marries the brother-in-law, slavery, arranged marriages, child marriages ...

2. The government has redefined marriage to rule out all of those "abnormal" varieties. It has also introduced divorce and prenuptial agreements.

3. There are no marriage quotas. Gays getting married has nothing to do with straights getting married.

4. Gays getting married doesn't change what his church defines as sacred marriage. It only affects secular marriage, wraps up a whole raft of legal benefits into one simple category.

5. Marriage has never been for procreation only; if it were, childless marriages would be anulled, men with vasectomies could not marry, and old folks would have to divorce.

Anyone who denies those facts is an idiot. Anyone who accepts those facts and still wants to prevent gays from getting married is a bigot.

That is news

it is not only blind, but deaf and dumb.

And apparently illiterate as well.

She's right. If the key roadblock to gay marriage is the word you call it, or the assurance that no church will be required to perform them, then make those compromises and get rights for people who need them. The first generation of out-and-proud gays and lesbians is now entering retirement, and their partnerships need the protections afforded by civil unions now.

Surely that was the case in Prop 8 because California still has civil unions on the books and the overwhelming majority approves. People don't like when you change the meaning of words.

It's right there in black and white.

Unintentionally hilarious.

Is that the Japanese version of Hanukkah?

Glad to see that she's as bad a "thinker" as she is a "musician."

She and Obama share something else too: they're both apparently very easily flattered.

The obvious counter-argument to the yamaka analogy is that, when you get off the plane in Tokyo, the word "marriage" has an obvious meaning and an obvious content, and is a word recognized the world over. "Civil union" could mean anything, and in fact could have different legal meanings in different states or countries. If your spouse is in the hospital, you want to be able to say simply "I'm his husband", and be able to back it up with something that says "they're married". OK, maybe it won't work in Islamabad, but it'll probably work in Prague.

despite all the criticism here.

> People don't like when you change the meaning of words.

Then take any word too precious to be changed out of the law. The law is a living, breathing thing and you will have to endure a few "changes to the definition of words" as we evolve.

Marriage used to be defined, by the way, as a man taking a woman (of the same race) as property.

Marriage has improved many times over the years, and each time the "definition" changed.

With that fractured grammar, how does she expect anyone to understand what she's saying?

While I am now an atheist, I was previously a Christian and studied the bible for 20+ years of my life. The bible is pretty clear about marriage. Wives (along with slaves and children) are property, they should accept that, husbands do have some special responsibilities to their peopl-property. Concubines? No Problem for most of the bible. Adultery is a property crime of taking from another man what is his. Multiple wives? Allowed. I can't see how Gay marriage is any stranger or less moral that what is explicitly allowed and endorsed by God in the Bible.

Yes there are tender, wonderful passages in the bible about love, sex, duty to your spouses. (note, Song of Songs is to a lover, not explicitly to a spouse). But I in no way get how Christians can claim the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage based on the Bible, or how they can claim that it is exclusive to them.

What I do know, is that my wife has had extreme health problems from the moment we got married (over 14 years).I made vows to her that I take seriously--more so now that I don't believe in the "if I only believe the right things then I will go to heaven no matter what I do" gospel of Christianity. I believe that I am only defined by my actions, not my thoughts or intentions.

If I had any bond less committed that marriage, I don't know how I would have stayed with her for this long. Sometimes, me sticking around came down to "our lives are legally entangled, and I promised to stay." I love her to bits. Always have, always wil. But love alone doesn't keep you going through all of the crap that we have gone through. It might be a thin thread, it might be a thread that only exists in my mind, but it is the thread that kept us together more than once.

It is funny, people (even my father-in-law) say I am some sort of superhero for sticking with my wife through all of this. I always think of gay couples that don't have that public vow and stick together through love alone and am humbled. Life is really tough, it sucks, we all need all the help to get through it as best we can. My vows and integrity are key parts of helping me make it through life. My hope is that everyone that wants to make that commitment publicly to the person they love, can.

As us heteros have shown, even with a well-meant vow, still marriages are fragile things. I hate divorce of heterosexuals, I hate hearing about it with homosexual couples too. But I don't believe that anyone (but rare freaks) gets married planning on divorce. Again, we all deserve the chance to make that commitment publicly, without shame to the person we love.

As that Keith O vid from a while back said, "It is about love."