If I actually had the opportunity to speak to an opponent of gay marriage in an open discussion, I'd have these comments and questions.

The notion of marriage as only a heterosexual union is presumably based on the tenet that heterosexuality is more "natural." In other words, heterosexual relationships can produce offspring while homosexual unions cannot. So if the only marriages that are valid are those that are based on the possibility of procreation (in an overpopulated world), are marriages without children valid? What about men and women that have a physical ailment that does not allow them to procreate? Or those that are too old to procreate? Should their marriage be dissolved? In fact, aren't we just saying that the point of marriage is to have sex?

If anyone has insight, please comment.

Anyone interested in joining a book club? We're going to focus on classic literature and leftist writings.

Email me if you want to join.

I got Fight Club too. How unoriginal.

The one and only haikuster will be in town this weekend, so I propose that we dedicate epeep Thursday night at the Pink to her. One more event to add to that busy calendar.

In less than 48 hours, Congress will vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would permanently deny marriage equality to same-sex couples. This is unprecedented -- never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. We've got to fight back.

Please sign on to our emergency petition to Congress to stop this divisive amendment at: