But I appreciate the love here!  :)  Even if we're just talking about taxes...

Tom:

Well there is love and taxes.  The truth is love -- in the human sense in the real sense -- your marriage to Eric is as beautiful and as real as mine is to Kelly.  It is a meeting of two souls who have found balance in the other.  No law can affect that commitment you have made to each other and the bond you both share.  It is the most powerful of bonds and a joy for not just you and your husband but with everyone you share your lives with.  In that sense there is real equality.  Your love with your husband is as moral and, dare I say, divine, as mine is with my wife.

Now taxes is truth too.  And here is where we discuss legality.  And arguably* you are entitled to equal protection under the law -- and by that equal treatment.  A legal question exists.  One I hope will be resolved appropriately sooner rather than later.

*Note I say arguably here because its not yet (to my knowledge) come to the Federal Courts.  I think there is no real legal question that homosexuals and homosexual marriages (or unions) should be treated equally under the law but arguments on the other side can and will be made.  Sorry to be so legalistic.

And a note to bring the gay marriage discussion and the election back to presidential politics:

Palin's support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage really troubles me.  Firstly, in the human sense as I do think its legislated biggotry.  But it bugs me in a constitutional sense because I think the constitution should be read to protect the citizenry from the government.  Banning gay mariage would be telling citizenry not to do something -- very uncommon for our constitution. 

It makes me wonder what her view on the constitution is: is it a protection from government or is it what the government is allowed to do?  It may seem like spliting hairs but I submit there is a universe of difference between those hairs and I offer the view of civil liberties under the present administration as evidence of the difference in views. 

I don't see much (if any) difference. Again, just my opinion.

----

I think there's a distinction to be made from a woman voting for a female politician  (for example) because she thinks the politician can understand the issues from her perspective and a woman voting for a female politician just because she's another woman. It can be a very fine line sometimes.

I remember talking with my grandfather when I was a little boy.  He was extolling the virtues of the American Experiment and how anyone could be president.  He related to me the story of his youth in the 1930's applying for engineering jobs and seeing signs in Philadephia reading Irish need not apply, Other jobs made it clear that Catholics were unwanted and the like.  20 plus years later he voted for an Irish Catholic for the highest office in the land.  My Pop was a democrat and would have voted for a democrat anyway but he told me he was so proud to be an american, and the the pride he felt in casting his vote for Jack Kennedy was one of the greatest joys of his life unrelated to his family.  Somewhere in America, likely in the city I am typing this, there is a grandfather feeling a similar pride to that of my grandfather.  Thats the pride Jodi was talking about.  That is the distinction I see. 

And I miss my Pop. 

any new amendment setting a limit on Marriage automatically runs into problems with the first part of the first amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

clearly this is a law to institutionalize a particular religious view...

I think thats a big part of the underpinnings of beliefs vis a vis opposition to gay marriage but opponents would never frame the argument that way.  Supporters would not attack it that way as it would (1) be seen as an attack on religion which would be a PR nightmare and fight they'd likely lose in the court of public opinion; and (2) there are better constitutional reasons for gay marriage (the equal protection issues I raised above) -- marriage as a legal construct rather than as a spiritual one.

I completely agree, Jason. Putting aside anyone's beliefs on this issue, I just don't think it's a winning strategy.

Just yesterday, I got a flyer in the mail from the N.C. Republican Party hitting on the gay marriage issue in our U.S. Senate race. It featured two wedding cake grooms and a headline proclaiming the Democratic challenger "Supports Gay Marriage."

Now, there's many issues where the Republicans can make hay in this particular Senate race - the Democrat has a long track record of voting for higher taxes and for voting lock-step with several other state legislators involved in a corruption scandal. I would find those types of arguments much more compelling that this ugly appeal to voters' worst instincts, which probably turn off as many people as they attract.