For the first time in my short life as a blogger, I gave serious thought to deleting a post. Because that goes completely against my grain, I decided to leave it.

Let me explain. Yesterday I was so outraged over the "Abolish Incidents of Marriage Amendment" (which is what it should properly be called), that I devoted another long, windbaggy post to the deception involved, and the very serious overreaching of this proposed amendment.

Even as I wrote it, I kept asking myself "Where's the outrage?" For this is an attack on all unmarried couples -- gay, straight, bi, eccentric -- in short, everyone who lives together without benefit of marriage.

A good legal argument could be made the that centuries-old legal doctrine of common law marriage would be declared unconstitutional.

The amendment is simply a grotesque overreaching -- so overbroad as to discredit the ostensible idea of prohibiting merely same sex marriage.

Now I realize that the gay rights movement should get down on their knees and thank the Amendment's drafters. No wonder they've been mostly silent. Remaining strategically silent now strikes me as the best way to defeat the damned thing. A strategic silence would allow the proponents to rush the thing through the "easy" states, and then and only then have the opponents move in for the kill.

Hopefully the sane and sober advice (by Eugene Volokh and others) to clean the thing up by removing "ambiguities" will be ignored, and the whole thing will go down in flames.

Anyway, this blog is not influential enough for me to worry about the possible downside of not keeping silent. And I don't take marching orders from the "gay movement" or any other movement. (I'm glad Andrew Sullivan doesn't either!)

So yesterday's post stays.

Otherwise, why blog at all?

UPDATE: In my last post I mentioned "civil disobedience" (possibly for heterosexuals) as a tactic. Now I see (via Drudge) that the City of San Francisco has beaten everyone else to the punch.

MORE: Here's the cached Google version of the Alliance for Marriage chart. (I hate it when such things "disappear".....)

AND MORE!: Definitionitis is spreading!

Here's the Federal "Y Men Amendment":

In the United States, a man is defined as a person who is born with a Y chromosome. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to recognize a person without a Y chromosome to be a man.

Well, "Y" not? We must close the chromosomal loophole fast! Otherwise, the chromo homos will try positively anything! Are you now, or have you ever been, a chromosexual?