Wizard – I don’t mind legal recognition of wedlock – it kind of secures in a tangible way those rights and responsibilities. Also, it’s not wanting to change my sexuality that’s the problem – it’s that they are basing the ability to enjoy full benefit of citizenship because of my sexuality that I have a problem with.

Thanks for your comment!

Wil- It’s hard not to be impatient. It’s been 40 years since Stonewall. But, thanks for your comments!

And, no not a native. Came to Sac in 2001. Live in the former swamplands of North Natomas, now home to 40,000 sardines.

I see that you were able to use the follow link on the main page, I just tried the widget here and it seems to be working fine. Perhaps there was a glitch with google/blogger at the time you tried it. I hope you will give it another try and thanks for reading and commenting!

kim

BaaHaahahahahaaa!

Yeah, yeah, whatever you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’ll try to read it later!

P S I couldn’t get the follow link to work can you please check it out.

P P S How do you get your logo int the tab?

I have faith that just as the courts had to overcome public opinion during the civil rights movement and assure there was no tyranny of the majority, they will do the same on the issue of same-sex marriage. California will lead the way – and the US Supreme Court will eventually realize it must – in the name of constitutional law – follow.

If we would have put civil rights up for a vote in the 1960s, it never would have passed, even in the most liberal states. The constitution protects the rights of a minority – I have hope.

By the way – I realized the other day you are in Sacramento. A native? I was born and raised in the Arden area (sadly, not the “park” part…just Arden/Watt).

Small world.

Margo… as always, you’ve got a great plan. I like that…”Start referring to opposite-sex couples as opposite-sex couples. It keeps the field even.”

Great points, MM. I really think you are onto a good plan of action there.

kim