California Vs. Gay Marriage: What, We Need Facts Now?

I'm pretty big into 'live and let live' until someone's actions hurt people. (Real harm, not hurting someone's feelings or offending their sensibilities). This is one reason why I, a lame straight dude, squawk incessantly about gay rights and gay marriage even though in my country these issues are, hopefully, pretty much settled (no thanks to Conservative politicians like Tom Lukiwski and Maurice Vellacot, who argued, vehemently, against these rights back before his Conservatives formed government).

Gay marriage clearly is not substantially different from straight marriage--as author, editor and pundit Dan Savage has said, it can be loving and committed, horrible and abusive, with children, childless, non-monogamous, not permanent, whatever.

Anyway in America last year, as you may recall, California voters voted to outlaw gay marriage because they're pushy religious jerks/scaredy-cat bigots, er, I mean it harmed families or some such bullshit. The law to ban gay marriage was called Proposition 8. And, not surprisingly, it's constitutionality is being challenged.

It actually should be a fun case. In this Associated Press story, a judge was asked to throw out the challenge. But he turned the table on Prop 8 supporters and basically said, "gay marriage is harmful? Prove it!"

And the pro- Prop 8 lawyer couldn't. At. All.

Facts and evidence. Who'd have thought you'd need those things when you decide to ban gay marriage? Should be a good show when this thing goes to court next January.