We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.

In actuality, this map is how the world responds to homosexuality. Click on it if you cannot read the legend. It says that the dark blue is where same-sex marriage is legal. The royal blue allows same-sex unions. In the light blue, it is not illegal to be gay, but you can't get married or anything like that. Large penalties in the yellow nations, and the death penalty in the red zones.

So, where do you stand? Do you believe in the freedom to stand up to religious strictures and publish cartoons be treated equally before the law, regardless of what lies between your lovers legs? Or are you maybe more the yellow-nation type? Or do you just wish it would all go away? Many people say they don't care if their neighbor is gay, just so long as it is kept in the closet private. But this is hardly a compelling argument for the continued insistence that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman. In fact, I have never heard a compelling argument for that continued insistence. Be careful, conservatives! Your only reasoning here is based on 1) religious law, or 2) "for the children".

Besides the fact that it is not true that children need a heterosexual pair of parents in order to turn out okay, it is in general an argument that conservatives mock when used by liberals on other issues (like smoking bans, gun bans, seat belt laws, etc.).

Some conservatives may try to sidestep and make this an issue of states rights. A majority of U.S. states have adopted Defense of Marriage Acts, which define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But fearing that these laws will not be upheld as constitutional in the state courts, religious activists have opted to push amendments to their state constitutions.

Here in Virginia, there is an amendment due for this November's ballot. I caught a piece by NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty this morning regarding the situation (available here). She quotes State Sen. Steve Newman, a Republican;

We're speaking directly to the federal courts, and saying, 'States have a right to define what marriage is for each individual state'

If you would like to know what is going on in your state, click on this interactive map:

Of course, it may be that none of this will be enough to stomp out equality before the law. Whenever something is fought out at the state level, it quickly makes its way to the federal level. I totally agree with Kip, Esquire, who writes:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has announced his intention to hold a vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment, a/k/a the Federal Marriage Amendment, in June (i.e., just in time to make it an election issue). I think that's wonderful. I want senators to go on the record, forever, on the issue of same-sex marriage. I want to see Republicans forced to stand up and declare, openly and unequivocally, that yes, they do think constitutionalizing bigotry is a good idea. I want to see Democrats forced to stand up and stop selling gays out and, for once, vote they way they keep promising to vote.

The problem is, this won't likely benefit the gay community. From Barbara Bradley Hagerty's piece;

Kareem Crayton, who teaches law and political science at the University of Southern California, says the marriage amendments stoked up the culture wars, impassioned the Christian conservative base... and may have played a major role in re-electing President Bush, especially in battleground states like Ohio.
"I think it had an effect on the intensity that voters had for showing up," he says. "So in Ohio, for example, where polling lines were extremely long, you were more likely to stay out in the rain and wait for your time to vote, if you thought this was a major issue and you couldn't just let it pass."

Seth Kilbourn of the Human Rights Campaign talks the personal liberty line for this issue;

"We need to make the case for why marriage for same-sex couples is good, why it is the true measure of equal treatment under the law. That will improve the vote."
If the message is equality, he says, the medium is personal stories.

But even Mr. Kilbourn doesn't have much optimism for this fall. This is a long-term issue, and it will only be longer still if conservatives and libertarians continue to stand against personal liberty. Do you believe that our government serves us best by basing its treatment of a man on the sex of his lover? Do you believe it is desirable that we in this nation continue to enshrine religious sensibilities over freedom?

I challenge the conservatives who stand in favor of personal freedoms to reevaluate the way they view the issue of gay marriage.