Stolen from my reply to a good friend's blog entry.

Oh, crap. That narrow-minded Defense of Marriage proposition passed.

I have no fucking idea how one open-minded person's mutual and monogamous love for their partner has any bearing on any other narrow-minded person's mutual and monogamous love for their partner, assuming we're talking about 4 discrete people. And for the narrow-minded person's sake, lets assume 4 discreet people as well.

One of the arguments I heard the fundies make was, "Well, next they'll say, 'I love this dog,' or 'I love that child' and expect the state to recognize their right to have sex with that animal or child."

What they don't get is that this isn't about sex. This is about a basic human right, to have their homosexual union be recognized as equal to that of any other heterosexual union (and for the pinheads among us, yes, I mean union of adult homo sapiens.) This is about the right to inherit property in the absence of a will, the right to visit as family and not just friend, the right to file (higher, most of the time) join taxes instead of as two.

This is about the right to be equal in the eyes of the law.

If someone's marriage is so weak that to see a strong and loving union between two men or two women is some sort of threat, then, yes, their marriage needs defending, but from within.

And this is my reply to my reply:

Oh, and for any disgusted techies from my old haunts, there are plenty of jobs up here in the Seattle suburbs. Drop me a line.