Four years ago, when Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon and more than 4,000 other couples said "I Do" this country took an irrevocable step toward securing equality for every American.

While many feel what we did was too much, too fast, too soon – we stand firm in the belief that our actions were not only just, but legal and constitutional. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether excluding gay couples from marriage violates the state constitution. Today, these Justices have a unique chance to follow in the proud tradition of California's high court, which took a courageous stand on marriage equality in 1948 when it ruled that the state's ban on inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional.

This afternoon, I received an email from my very wingnutty stepfather. This is not surprising; he sends me wingnut missives on a fairly regular basis. Today's ACTION ALERT is regarding the attempts by certain Arizona legislators to define marriage as "between one man and one woman", and was excreted originally by The Center for Arizona Policy; a very very scary organization.

They tried to pass this in 2006, under Arizona Proposition 107, but it failed to pass. I may be moving from Arizona this month, but I would like to leave it somehow better than it was when I arrived. This narrowminded amendment needs to be shouted down. These "Protect Marriage" people are incensed that some large employers, including state and county entities, do cover some domestic partner benefits. I'd like to give them something to chew on - that all the people of Arizona are not such bigots as to support a renewed charge for a marriage amendment.

I am a gay man in NYC.  My partner Rusty and I have been together for 8 years.  I use the term "partner" because, here in New York, we are not allowed to marry. That may change if we can ever get the Republicans out of power in the State Senate, but for now, it is the reality.

I often see it asked, however -- and this, by persons whom I know to be well-meaning and supportive of recognition of same-sex relationships -- why it is necessary to push for "marriage".  Why, it is said, aren't civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or some other arrangement sufficient?  Why must we antagonize people by pressing for full entry into the institution of marriage?

I could answer this is many ways.  We could talk about the inherent repugnance of "separate-but-equal."  We could talk about the absurdity of creating new legal institutions just for the purpose of marking same-sex relationships as different.  But today, I'd like to talk about the actual, real-world, practical issues.  As a court decision of yesterday demonstrates, the denial of same-sex marriage rights affects our lives in real ways.

Meet John Langan.  
(Let me tell you more after the jump.)

They came from different places . . . different as much in how they lived their lives as in where they lived them.

Debbie's cousin, Laurie, cancer survivor, came from Hesperia, CA.  Better here than in fire country.  And Debbie's twin brother Jim, a lawyer, and his new bride Nooshin came from near the La Brea tar pits.  So there was some tension about back home.

Robyn was supremely thrilled that people came from Oregon.  Her sister Jan, a cardiologist from Corvallis, and Jan's son Ian, newly graduated from Santa Clara and embarking on an internship in PR with the University of Washington athletic department, and Robyn would see each other for the first time since 1993.  They were all younger back then.  We were pretty much different people on that occasion.