Mike over at Gay Orbit makes an excellent observation on the New York ruling on the unconstitutionality of a gay marriage ban - the judge was elected to the bench! While the relationship between being elected and the ability to grasp consitutionality has never been made clear to me, the shell of that argument is one that the intolerance thump over and over. We in Canada get our judges the old fashioned way and have no end of elected politicians in some corners who have no grasp or, perhaps for some, even interest in all the freedoms of all citizens. Maybe a few more elections to a few other positions like lower court judges would not be so bad after all.

Later: Here is a great quotation from the ruling which sums up two powerful arguments I support in this matter:

Rote reliance on historical exclusion as a justification improperly forecloses constitutional analysis and would have served to justify slavery, anti-miscegenation laws and segregation. There has been a steady evolution of the institution of marriage throughout history which belies the concept of a static traditional definition. Marriage, as it is understood today, is both a partnership of two loving equals who choose to commit themselves to each other and a State institution designed to promote stability for the couple and their children. The relationships of plaintiffs fit within this definition of marriage. Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone.