Insert 'desperate gays' joke here...

I'm no supporter of efforts to limit marriage or define it in any particular way. If you don't believe me, I'll show you the pics of me circa May 2004, wearing a rainbow flag (and little else), cheering Ellen Goodridge as she walked out of Cambridge City Hall with her brand new wife. As a matter of fact, I am all for the proposal to get government out of the marriage business altogether, leaving it up to religious leaders of the various faiths and denominations to work out who will allow whom to marry. Let the bureaucrats do the civil union thing, (for ANYONE), and if the God Squad is all that concerned about who is marrying whom, let them work it out their own selves, without any impact on peoples' statutory privleges. That said, I feel like the gays up there in Mass. are getting a little ahead of themselves. Here they are, arguing for what they feel (and I agree) are their constitutional rights. Their opposition, however misguided, has worked to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot with the standard tripe about gays destroying marriage. So the gay-rights kids sued, claiming the proposed constitutional amendment is unconstitutional. Exactly. Aren't all amendments? Isn't that why they have to amend the constitution? And who does the attorney general think he is to decide what amendments are and are not constitutional? What ever happened to that whole demorcacy/voting/will of the people thing? How many rhetorical questions should I ask in one paragraph? Can I stop now?