I've been watching with interest what's happening in Massachusetts and San Francisco with regard to gay marriages. And I've been doing it analytically, rationally. I cannot imagine what gay and lesbian couples, or singles for that matter, must be feeling right now. Outrage doesn't seem to do it justice. This New York Times editorial put it succinctly: "President Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans."

My husband's no help. As far as he's concerned of course gay marriage is okay. "Why should only straights suffer?" He's a barrel of laughs, believe me. But what I can't figure out, is how EXACTLY does gay marriage threaten or harm the institution of marriage. If more people are getting married and staying married, doesn't that improve the state of marriage? Speaking of states, boy oh boy is this a conservative Catch-22 if there ever was one -- so which is worse, gay marriages or having the big, bad federal government involved in one of the most intimate and personal decisions a human being can make? Let the squirming begin.

Or even worse. Every one of the SOBs behind this amendment knows it isn't going anywhere. Bush's speech hits all the right buttons (pun intended) and makes all the homophobic fascists happy -- without any intention, or expectation that this becomes reality. Then when it fails they can blame it on those crazy liberals. Everybody wins. Or is that just way too cynical?

I have three words for you -- E - R - A. Remember that one? Everyone's still into 70's nostalgia. Can't some forward thinking Democratic resurrect that puppy? Now that's an amendment whose time has come. Just be sure it covers everyone - regardless of their choice of a soulmate.