Yesterday, I wrote a long diary about my feelings about same-sex "marriage" as opposed to civil unions, about the California ruling, about liberal hand-wringing over whether gay marriage will be used as a wedge issue in this election, my feelings as an activist and lesbian who has been in a committed relationship for 8+ years, my disappointment with Barack Obama, and whether gays and lesbians should grab the reigns of the gay marriage issue in light of our successes in California and New York, or patiently wait for a better political environment to push for fairness and equality.

This morning I read David Pauls Kuhn's cover story about the subject in Politico
which suggests the likelihood that no matter how gays handle the situation, fundamentalists will try and push gay marriage as a wedge issue, and rally their troops against it with threats of fire, brimstone, and polygamist seniors defiling herds of adolescent sheep.

In this context, I think the situation is worthy of more reflection. If you care to join me, take my hand for the jump...  

As Californians celebrate their court's historic ruling in honor of gay rights, and polls indicate increasing acceptance and tolerance for gay marriage, many folks are still pushing the civil unions agenda, with the argument that marriage is a religious institution, and gays can live without it. Leave marriage for the churches, they argue.

The California Supreme Court recognized in their ruling that nothing equals marriage but marriage, and denying gays and lesbians equal access to marriage -- not just its legal protections, but also its cultural recognition -- is unconstitutional discrimintation.

Many lefties, wringing their hands over any threat to what looks like our first clear opportunity to set the policy agenda, fear that gay marriage will be used as a wedge issue in the upcoming elections. Furthermore, Barack Obama, my candidate of choice, does not support full marriage equality. So, where does this all leave us? Follow me and we shall see...

According to Jonathan Martin on Politico, John McCain's campaign is encouraging bloggers to infiltrate web sites to post comments complimentary to John McCain. Among the blogs names on a recommended list? You got it -- Daily Kos.

Want to know more? Follow me.

Okay, I admit that I usually groan and roll my eyes when I see a diarist proclaim to know what Obama's Next Big Speech should be. I mean, I'm certain that Obama and his team have a pretty good idea about how they should campaign and when and where it's appropriate and neccessary to speak out about something.

That said, would Daily Kos be the thriving, buzzing community that it is, without its bevy of backseat drivers and Monday quarterbacks? Therefore, swallowing my own elitist attitude towards those who think they know more than the  candidate about what he or she should do, I throw this, my own two-cents version of "What Obama Should Do Now" into the abyss. Intrigued? Read on.

This from the Huffpost just now: In a blog on Huffpost, Julia Louis- Dreyfus proclaims her support for Obama!

I don't know how to block in cut-and-paste text or I would do so here. Still, I was interested and excited to read this in light of all the WVWV stuff.  The title of her blog is: A Point of Clarification.

She also sternly denounces the Lamont Williams calls.

Time and again, in debates, on the Sunday talkies, and so on, I see the Hill camp getting away with the soundbite, "Obama's plan leaves 15 million uninsured, Hillary's plan insures everyone." The worst rebuttal I've heard to this is, "That's simply not true." Even a smart woman like Elizabeth Edwards has bought into that soundbite. However, the way I see it, Obama's plan is superior to Clinton's in so many ways.