Finally, thanks to 'activist' judges, America will have the opportunity to learn the true nature of gay marriage, and perhaps learn a little about heterosexual marriage along the way. The honest truth, it will likely be revealed, is that same-sex marriage simply isn't relevant to all those protesting it. Perhaps then, some of our esteemed leaders in Richmond will finally get a clue and do what is right instead of trying to compete for Pat Robertson's blessings.

First, it is worth looking at the basis for the argument that gay marriage would somehow impinge upon the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Frankly, we would do well to look at whether there's any sanctity of the sort so often alluded to in church left in the first place. Given the divorce rate, the constant news of self-righteous individuals caught in compromising positions, and the steady stream of married guests airing all kinds of filthy laundry on talk shows, it is arguable that heterosexuals have done a dandy job eroding away at the institution on their own without any help from us.

Second is the question of whether gay marriages would have any direct effect on straight married couples. The only pertinent question to heterosexual couples is whether their rights are affected. Opening marriage to all would not offer gay couples special access to anything straight couples don't already have. Their rights are not lessened by my partner and I getting the same certificate and the rights and responsibilities they have. Marriage isn't a scarce commodity that would have to be taken from one group to be given to another. The anti-gay-marriage laws, therefore, are little different from miscegenation laws, meant merely to exclude out of ignorance and hate.

Having proved inane the argument that same-sex unions detract from heterosexual marriages, we must examine what may be gained. First, amusingly, it has become apparent that there is a lot of money to be made. Forbes estimated that the windfall from gay marriages could be as high as $16.8 billion nationwide, surely a capitalist's dream come true. Much of that would find its way into government coffers, via license fees and taxes. One would expect Republicans to be supporting gay marriage instead of opposing it - what better way to gain revenue without ever having to raise taxes? San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome certainly saw this as a reason for allowing the marriages, with 4,037 same-sex couples lining up happily (gaily?) to pay the $80 fee. Add the formalwear and flower shops that couldn't keep anything in stock for weeks and it starts to look like a great way to reinvigorate the economy.

Second, few married couples understand the importance of the rights they have. Imagine not being able to be at your spouse's deathbed because the hospital refused to recognize your relationship. Imagine raising a kid together for ten years and then being denied even basic visitation rights upon separation by a court that doesn't recognize your relationship. Imagine your life partner not being able to get adequate medical care because your insurance provider refuses to recognize your relationship. Were this situation forced on heterosexual couples, there would be no end to public outrage, yet half the country is willing to deny happy same-sex couples the same rights purely on the basis of specious arguments filled with words like sanctity, tradition, and God.

With some money and a bit of fancy legal footwork, same-sex couples found ways to legally obtain most of these rights until the Republicans in Richmond found a way to trample on the rights of private citizens. Isn't the Grand Old Party normally against that sort of intrusion? The new legislation makes any contract which would confer the same rights as marriage illegal. They didn't just deny us new rights; they deliberately robbed us of what few we had to begin with. That kind of naked hostility is unchristian, unconservative, and unacceptable in a civilized society.

If activism is standing up for rational interpretation of the law and respect for the rights of fellow citizens, then we should all consider ourselves extraordinarily lucky to have activist judges willing to take on hate and ignorance. Were it not for such activism, public places would still be segregated, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and contraception would be illegal; in fact, we wouldn't even be able to sue for our rights because the courts would be unable to decide on the constitutionality of laws. Thank God for activist judges!