I suppose this is progress, in a highly perverse way:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/16/national/a091816D11.DTL His Majesty Mr. Steele is reduced to making arguments that appear logical on the surface but collapse under the weight of their own stupidity upon the second glance (for some it won't take a second).
If the world followed Mr. Steele's model of decorum, the same person who stars in his little side show would not have a gay partner but would instead have an opposite sex partner who would enter into a "conventional" marriage, thus causing the small business owner EXACTLY THE SAME expense.
This argument is so specious and so devoid of any basis for acceptance by anyone who gives it a moment of thought, that it suggests we are seeing the beginning of the end of mainstream opposition to the idea that couples should not be denied conjugal rights on the basis of gender.
