I have never understood why the gay "marriage" people have put so much emphasis on the whole "equal rights" meme. Maybe I'm just a stupid Neanderthal conservative, but it seems to me that everybody, straight or gay, has the same "rights" when it comes to marriage: that is, anyone over a given age (with some variation from state to state) can be married to ONE (1) person (also over that given age). Now, since marriage is "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife" that means the other person must be the opposite sex, but it imposes no constraints on what their sexual orientation must be, nor does it impose any requirements about romantic love or sexual attraction. Seems to me that, in the dispassionate eyes of the law, homosexuals (as well as polyamorists, bisexuals, transsexuals, those into bestiality--are they called bestialists?--for that matter) already have exactly the same rights in this as heterosexuals.

Thus, it's really not about "equal rights" no matter how often they repeat that; it's about redefining marriage.

Roy: You're right, but liberals just laugh and laugh at that argument.

I laugh and laugh at watching the Democrats tie themselves into knots over gay marriage, from John Kerry's "my position is exactly the same as George Bush's" to Howard Deans complete 180s depending upon what audience he's talking to.

Since the four judges in the New York ruling specifically did not say that gay marriage was permanently against the law but that it was an issue for the state legislature to decide, Dean's rant comes off as even more unthinking than normal. He's basically saying he doesn't want elected legislators, even in one of the most liberal states in the union, to decide a controversal issue, but favors having the matter decided in the courts.

You couldn't ask for a better example of liberal disdain for voters and their desire to obtain through the courts what they can't achieve through the legislative system. But I'll bet the more astute liberals wish Howard had kept his mouth shut about he and his followers' real feelings, less some of the swing voters out there decide they'd rather vote for people who have more faith in the elective process.

With anti-gay marriage propositions winning everywhere in landslides, the Dems need the courts to take this off the plates of the politicians.

Don't forget that Howard Dean was so supportive of gay marriage that he courageously signed Vermont's civil union bill in the dead of night with absolutely no press in attendence. That's some courage!
Howard has kind of a history of trying to have things both ways, and not really succeeding.

The Dem strategy has been clear--get the courts to mandate same-sex "marriage" and then "reluctantly" state that the courts have spoken, and their rulings must be adhered to. Now that their faith in our black-robed masters has been dashed, their base will demand that legislatures start acting, which puts legislators in a hopeless position--alienate either the activist base or the overwhelming majority of voters.

Our black-robed masters haven't spoken until Tony "Irrational Animus" Kennedy has his say.