Dedicated to Hans Waagen

I was flipping through the Mercury News this morning and came across a letter that Hans "Chuck" Waagen had submitted that I think pretty clearly spells out what went wrong with Prop H8 on the ballot the other day:

Prop. 8 foes need to stop whining

When we were young, many of us were taught to be graceful while winning and to lose with equal grace whether it be politics, baseball, business or whatever. The gay constituency would be better served if they quit whining about losing, and accepted the reality of the majority popular vote for Proposition 8. Marriage is not a civil right. It is a mainly religious institution that has lasted for thousands of years with the attendant definition being the legal union between a man and a woman.

Hans Waagen

Does everyone see Hans' mistake (it's highlighted in red)? Still not getting it? The problem is that if, as Hans stipulates, marriage is a religious institution, what the hell are we doing ammending our constitution to define it? Get it now?

Remember the first ammendment? Right, Freedom of Speech. But it also covers the separation of church and state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, Hans, how do you want to work this - do you want to change your definition of marriage to remove the religious aspect of it, or do you want to abandon the first ammendment. Your call. The Bush Administration has made strides towards abandoning the first ammendment, maybe you can just hop on their bandwagon?