I'm back in San Francisco again. (Sadly enough, this is not a literal state.) See, I keep hearing/reading it said that the marriages never should have been performed because they were against the law, and that the law should have been challenged in court first (it is presently being challenged).

Here's the deal, though. Acts of civil disobedience are more likely to get people's attention, and pictures of plain old, heartfelt joy carry a bigger punch than courtroom sketches. This is no pointless blockade of federal buildings in protest of the war in Iraq. This is people saying "you have passed laws that make me less equal than my neighbors, and I'm not going to obey them."

The newlyweds don't yet know if their marriage licenses will be honored. No one does. However, as the law outlawing gay marriages probably neglected to say what would happen if it was broken, it is now necessary for officials to actually think about denying some pretty heady benefits to some very committed couples. The issue has a human face -- thousands of them, actually. It is no longer about a prohibition of priviledges, but about their removal.

And maybe there's an off chance that it'll be the wake-up call lawmakers need. Well, some of them. I'm not holding out hope for Arnie.