I can't find much in there to disagree with, actually. Banji makes many of the same arguments Andrew Sullivan makes, only the syntax is a bit more, uh, creative.

I like Stefan Sharkansky's comments on the San Francisco "wedding" last week: "I'm relieved to reassure you, having confirmed this with my Mrs., that I am still happily married. I'm also pleased to announce that our son is still playing with his trucks."

I know two gay couples, one set male and one set female, who have both been together more than 20 years. It would be fantastic if their bonds -- stronger than many hetero marriages -- could be officially recognized and granted the same legal status as hetero couples.

Myself, I can't get worked up in objection to gay marriage. It had seemed for quite some time that lesbians were far more mature about commitment than gay men, but now I am finding there are more and more of the latter who are settling down, too.

If we want to encourage that as a society, it's not illogical to re-consider how to recognize those commitments. Though I won't be leading any crusade against gay marriage, I think advocates should be careful not to crucify opponents as neccesarily mean-spirited and homophobic. A principled, decent person can oppose gay marriage. Hell, I've met gay people who oppose it. (OK, it was a gay libertarian).

As a "liberal" San Franciscan, I find it interesting how the majority of Americans feel that their majority status permits them to consider amending the Constitution of the United States in order to maintain the status quo in regard to marriage.

One must ponder whether the majority of Americans ever considered restricting rights by amending the constitution when they were dealing with Jim Crow laws, woman's suffrage and inter-racial marriage. If, indeed, it only takes a majority of the people to amend the constitution to deny equality, then I suppose we should consider amending the constitution to restrict the rights of African Americans and women so that history will not frown upon this generation's decision to limit the freedoms of tax-paying Americans.