bit heated at times. And things changed. A whole class of people's rights were, eventually, recognized (and the rights of others to own them or otherwise treat them like garbage was removed). Were no rights involved, simply because opinions changed? Please. @ MichaelW : It seems nothing anyone with sense may say will change your mind, but will you at least give one reason why it is any of your business that these people who wish to marry need to wait for others to decide their rights. Hmm. The verse regarding mixed fibers is Le 19:19. In the KJV it reads "neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." In the NAB (1983) it reads "... do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread." @ Rob in CT : I don't know that that's the best analogy. The rights to which you just made reference ultimately were recognized, yes, but only in the aftermath of by far the deadliest war in U.S. history. Besides, if rights properly are conferred by debate and legislation that means, ipso facto, both that rights and especially incipient rights properly can be taken away by debate and legislation. Isn't that what California and so many other states have done in connection with plebiscite-based legislation on this issue? In any case, the more I think about this whole debate the more I come to the conclusion that the gay and lesbian community is setting itself up to