Yes, and for every one that follows, many more will side against it. Like myself, for example, Mrs. Du Toit, etc, etc.

Those pressing the issue are trying to turn it into a for or against issue, effectively eliminating the grey area. This stands to blow up in their faces in a very big way, from what I've been seeing.

That's fine.

OTOH, it is the "Gay marriage" advocates assault on rule of law and democracy that moved me off the fence.

You know, I don't really have a problem with Gay marriage as such, but the hysterical shrieking tantrums being thrown by the gay marriage advocates(like the always emotional Andrew Sullivan) isn't making me think any better of the movement. What we are talking about here is whether two guys living together can file their taxes jointly. At the end of the day, that's the crux of the matter. Now, maybe they should. But the fact that they can't is not some horrible human rights violation. I find the comparisons to the civil rights struggle, to end real discrimination, to be downright offensive, not to mention dishonest. And don't even start with the "Freedom abroad-Freedom at home" duality. The problem with Iraq was not that Saddam was denying marriage to gay people. It was the torture and mass-murder. If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot.

Newsom and Bush may have moved a few people, but I think they've mostly forced people to think about where they stand instead of hoping the issue would go away. That's the case for me. I've given up and come out in favor of some form of civil union, though I'd prefer to see how such unions played out before deciding on the technically nitpicky but semantically all-important question of whether to call it marriage.

Incidentally, I'll be voting for Pres. Bush in spite of his position on this matter.