"When I said I was a uniter, not a divider, I assumed you'd understand I meant a heterosexual uniter"

If I were getting married today, I think I'd opt for a civil union instead. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals feels so arbitrary that it's, yes, weakening the institution for me.

I could argue in favor of my position, and you would hear nothing that you hadn't heard from others. But I don't think we change our minds about moral issues through argument. We change our minds by trying on moral positions the way we try on clothes. How does it feel? What type of person do I want to be? Even, how does it make me look? More reflection with more serious outcomes, but like trying clothing, it's about who we are, not what we believe.

I feel pretty hopeful that America is going to try on this position and like the way it feels. Eventually. But maybe not before we've passed a Constitutional amendment outlawing it. And certainly not before the Republicans have possibly ridden to victory on it.

For this is, of course, a potent wedge issue precisely because it's not about policy but about what type of people we see ourselves as.

The Democratic response is not going to be a resounding "Yes!" in favor of love as transcendent of gender, and marriage as a force that makes a deep relationship deeper. It's going to be: Let's not talk about love and marriage and the type of people we Americans are. Let's talk about state's rights instead.

Damn clever Republicans.