You are too concerned with this "separate but equal" nonsense. Separate but equal is constitutional, for all intents and purposes, if the Supreme Court says it is.

You're confusing me with someone else you responded to, I think. I don't disagree with you here. Separate but equal probably could be constitutional if we decided it was . My point isn't that separate but equal is wrong. My point is that those who oppose same sex marriage are building their own federal case, whether we are ready to go to federal court or not.. My point is that we supporters need to get cracking on the federal issues at stake before we are beaten to the punch.

Whatever strategy we end up choosing... the facts can and must speak for themselves. FACT Civil unions and domestic partnerships are NOT equal to marriage, and yet they are the only options available for same sex couples who wish to see their families protected by law. FACT there are many states in which even these lesser protections are unavailable to same sex citizens. FACT opponents to same sex marriage are determined and highly organized, working to set as many legal precedents in their favor as possible FACT these opponents have already had a substantial margin of success (especially considering the blatant weakness of their arguments).

From a strategical standpoint, gradually persuading the whole country that same sex marriage is A-OK ... that goal is at worst irrelevant, and at best a secondary concern. Personally, I give two sh*ts whether 55% or 5% of the population approves of same sex marriage. Public opinion should have 0% to do with my right to marry someone of the same sex if I so choose.

Our primary goal as same sex marriage activists needs to be convincing our lawmakers that the right to marriage, regardless of gender, is already a protected right under Our Constitution. And then building our case.

It's the difference between telling people they will be protected "someday" whenever we get used to the idea, or confirming that we are all already protected by Our Constitution in the here and now.

Now having said all that, I concede that there are no guarantees here and that courts have been ruling in unpredictable ways. You're right about the make up of the panel. If this were somehow forced into the Highest Court tomorrow, I shudder to think of what the outcome would be. Be that as it may, we're still headed to Court.. it's inevitable... so let's have part of our activist strategy be getting our legal arguments together for chrissakes!