It's tragic that groups like "Protect Marriage Washington", and countless individuals in America actually believe that they have some "right by majority" power to decide to whom and when constitutional rights will be applied to fellow citizens.

In any event, it's good to see that, however slim, a majority of citizens are waking up.

What boggles my mind is that, ok, I understand sombunall people's need to protect their idea of marriage...so when this referendum came up, with its intentional not using of the term marriage, there were still people like the Pastor at a church my wife goes to who was telling his congregation to vote against it, giving a pamphlet out as to the "why"...and it wasn't even a pamphlet put out by him, but by another organization -- I would love to wave a wand and give that Pastor "absolute self-knowledge" and watch the tears and grief come, followed, of course, by the healing...

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

In the 1967 Supreme court case Loving v. Virginia the Supreme court recognized that marriage is a civil right. The principal at work here is that basic rights are not (at least should not be) subject to popular opinion. If you want to practice a religion it isn't voted on whether or not your religion is popular enough to be accepted. Unless it's something where the state has a compelling reason to intervene (human sacrifice, child sexual abuse) it's something you're free to do. Likewise free speech. No one votes on whether or not you can say something and unless you're yelling fire in a crowded theater or selling kiddie porn or state military secrets, it's simply your own right. Marriage should be the same. As long as it's consensting adults the law should treat everyone equally. Gender and sexual orientation should not be a consideration any more than race or religion are. You can never justify saying demographic group A has these rights under the law but demographic group B has more or fewer rights under the law.