I know I'm both beating a point to death and preaching to the choir here, but I enjoy this editorial in the times. It doesn't say anything new or profound, but it's nice. And after sitting in the gallery during the local GA debate over same-sex marriage, it's on my mind again. (btw - the bill was 3 votes shy of passing and they're going to try again on Monday)

"In a world beset by ignorance and poverty and suffering, a world wracked with wars and terror attacks and ethnic strife of every kind, it seems crazy to be twisting ourselves into knots over the desire of good men and women to transcend the prison of themselves and affirm their love for another by marrying."

-snip-

"The opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. The interests of civilization are not served by driving mature love underground. And the interests of the United States, which is supposed to be the quintessence of a free society, are not served by enshrining bigotry in law."

On the other hand there was a really well-written piece in the AJC a few days ago (I'd link to it, but I can't seem to gain access to the online archives) wherein the writer was both courteous and articulate, something I have found to be missing from most opponents of gay marriage. Anyway, her thesis was that the relationship of marriage is a "moral absolute" or at least, is symbolic of a moral stance, and that if one ascribes to the belief that homosexuality is "wrong" then allowing gays to marry is one step down a slippery slope of moral relativism. I don't agree with this particular point of view, and believe that in debate several holes could be shown in her rhetoric (she's in favor of full legal rights for gay couples but not marriage, leaving the whole marriage debate as nothing more than semantics, and how can semantics carry the weight of morality? anyway...) it was perhaps the first time I've found the opposing viewpoint presented in a carefully thought-out, and as I said, respectful way. She apologized for hateful words that have been used to describe gays and reminded readers that although christianity is a religion about love, sometimes it's followers fall short. She did not claim that gay marriage would ruin the institution of marriage itself or doubt the legitimacy of love between two partners of the same sex. It was refreshing.

Ok, enough procrastination. Three midterms next week. Just have to get to spring break...just make it to spring break...spring break...