not to pick on you, as i typically admire those who post opinions that run counter to the ‘groupthink’ that is so prevalent in academia and in elitist circles, but you make some errors.

1) july 19 2008 has not yet occurred in the reference frame from which i’m posting.
2) i agree that physicists are no more capable of commenting on society than any other member in it. what that poster may have meant was “because physicists often possess excellent analytical skills, they can more readily determine the causes, effects, and possible solutions to societal problems”. i certainly agree that ‘elitism’ a la’ “i know better than you” is no good whether it comes from harvard or mount patmos. nonetheless, as jon stewart put it, “I WANT the president to be elite”, that is, I think we all desire an effective and competent leader.
you are certainly right to demand that physicists who wish to shape public policy adhere to the same standards as anyone else.
3) i am not living in california, and am not really aware enough to comment about whether “judicial activism” is indeed occurring. it was disheartening to me that so many referenda in the past have conclusively determined that americans remain opposed, as a populace, to permitting gay marriage. however, as important a metric as public opinion is to determining what laws to make, we must remember that the constitution was written to protect us from ourselves (by us i obviously mean white, landowning men, a group in which i do not yet belong).
4) serbo-croatian is no longer a single language, but has rapidly split into bosnian, croatian, serbian, and montenegrin. am i missing any?

so to conclude, i agree that physicists are a bunch of pompous jerks who couldn’t fix their car. i’m one of them, and surrounded by them. but why should my blue-collar uncle from peoria not be allowed to enjoy the same rights with respect to his ’spouse’ as those that are bequeathed upon heterosexuals. they have been together 30 years, and if one was dying in a hospital, spousal visitation would not apply? regardless of whether one finds homosexuality “abnormal”, “normal”, or “disgusting”, it is an undeniable civil rights violation, regardless of any majority opinion. ask yourself; what would a referendum taken in regard to the legality of slavery had as an outcome in 1800? (even assuming the slaves could have voted)

My friend Andy once articulated the ideas of your first paragraph as: “If gays can marry, I’ll love my wife 20% less. And I’ll start kicking the dog, too.” But yah, it’s hard to be snarky, it’s too sweet. When the verdict came down, I was completely bowled over, then couldn’t stop smiling for three days. Equality. We get to be equal!

I’d been happy with registered domestic partnership — same tax status, inheritance, adoption, etc. But the blank look on straight folks’ faces when you say, “RDP” - wow. I hadn’t realized how unequal “separate but” was until we got a shot at “equal.”

(Too bad the comment thread slid down the slippery slope.)

Wikipedia is not only infallible but, in this case, it happens to be right :-). I, as an Aegean archaeologist, should have noted that polygamy comes from Greek: poly (many) gamos (marrying) — which theoretically covers both polyandry and … um, polygamy.

That’s the problem, isn’t it. Default position = male. ACLU = default position. But I’m sure they’ll help me should I want to marry four husbands.

…and members of Congress should be allowed to publish papers on their favorite theories in the physics journals . . .

They are already allowed to do that. Publishing in scientific journals is, in principle, open to everyone. So, just like a paper by a Congress member won’t be rejected just because he isn’t a physicist, Sean’s input on this topic should not be disqualified merely because he is a physicist.