Macbeth? I know you think it should be a one time deal. So do most
people. What does that have to do with gay marriages? Isn't it the
commitment that counts? Look at Bush and Laura...solid marriage...
not too good with child rearing, but better than nothing. Look at
Bill and Hillary...solid marriage... slightly better than the Bush
twins, but certainly not a perfect union.

With all the important things on the Senate's plate, why is this
even being addressed right now? Why? It's politics.

It's more than politics. California did vote against gay marriage, but
people like Gavin Nuisance just ignored that completely. If those
marriages are allowed to stand by ruling of the court in California (or
Massachusetts,) those court opinions will naturally start spreading
like dominoes from state to state, for uniformity's sake. Many people
on the secular right care less about "gay marriage" than about a bunch
of unelected black-robed monarchs writing new laws ... out of whole
cloth ... against the clear will of the people. If it's a human right
overdue, like womens suffrage, then have two competing constitutional
amendments go to the people and see which one wins the day. That's how
women got their right to vote. If the people don't settle the issue
soon, then the mostly-liberal State Supreme Courts will settle the
issue for them. As an equal bond, "gay marriage" will be required to
get the very same respect in public schools, and in every other aspect
of public life, and it's a LIE. Children are much better off when they
have both a mother and a father. Clearly, most people don't think
homosexual relationships deserve equal respect with traditional
marriage. Nowhere in human history are intercourse and sodomy seen as
the same thing. There's no reason to start doing that now, absent
public consent.