I truly don't know what to make of the Richardson statement. Until I read the transcrip this morning, I thought he simply had avoided answering by saying he wasn't a scientist. But indeed he did start with saying it was a choice. But I can't dismiss him entirely given his active pushing for domestic partnership legislation, and obviously something akin to that made him your favorite previously. I saw him look unomfortable and uneasy at an earlier event (I was going to say "debate" but that would have implied that last night's even was one, too), and wonder if he just was basically out of it.

As to his staffer later saying that whether homosexuality is a choice or not isn't important, it wasn't redemptive, but once the words were out of his mouth I'm not sure that things like "he didn't really mean that", etc., would have passed muster either.

But I do believe that a person can validly have at least doubts as to the exact mix of "nurture versus nature", and still believe in and be honestly committed to marriage equality. Our religious beliefs are largely, if not exclusively, a matter of choice, yet we consider religious freedom a core matter of civil rights and equality. And we do have some folks in our own GLBT community who are affronted at what they see as the assertion that we need civil rights protection because "we just can't help ourselves" in satisfying our urges". So I guess I can't place myself with those who would demonize him because he's been doing the right thing for what they consider to be an unacceptable reason.

I'm sure there are folks who, if tommorrow full marriage (and by that name) became the law of the land, would say: "No, thanks, I don't want your patronizing equality if you think my sexuality is a choice." Maybe one of them will respond to this.

I don't think it is a "save" (and I kinda resent Huffington Post's dramatic headline on the issue).

As you go on to say, if you actually *listen* to what Richardson was saying, it is a quite profound appeal.

Instead of listening to him self-referentially, try imagining yourself as one of the 90% of the audience, the non-gay part, who we hope might also listen to him.

His thought, then runs like this.

1. For those who are telling you they *know* that it is choice, then I say, I'm not a scientist, I don't know - implicitly saying, you aren't either. (In other words, his epistemology works FOR LGBT, against Christianist certaintists)!

2. The issue then is not one about definition (read, Holy Moral Order) it's about humanity, about doing what is decent, about treating people without discrimination, in the face of companionship and caring.

3. Therefore, because we don't know, we love each other and enact laws that show caring, not prejudice.

It's too bad the the uproar over his comments have also masked one of the few real-world comments about bi-national comments, as well.