I'm not "attacking pictures," nor am I comparing the pictures to the images of the Civil War and the Iraq war. I'm merely questioning the relevence of those pictures to this debate. (Regardless, we're not the first to bring up the Civil War; McCartney compared Newsom to Lincoln.) If this thread were a sanctuary of gay-marriage gushers, no problem. But it's not a thread for gushers: supposedly, this discussion is about the intellectual questions surrounding this controversy, whether marriage should be redefined, whether it's an issue of civil rights or states rights (and it cannot be both), whether Newsom was right to break the law, etc. So, what does those pictures add to this debate? "I believe the links were provided to give add commentary to the thread by those who were there. By showing these images and hearing these testimonies, it gives one a better idea of the situation at City Hall--that is to say, it wasn't a croud of political activists angrily seeking to destroy the state constitution with their hatred for everything heterosexual. It was about who have loved each other (in many cases, monogomously for decades) seeking to solemnly promise their lifelong commitment to each other." So the fact that the pictures show the couples are breaking the law joyfully instead of angrily actually means something? I doubt it does, since nobody here is suggesting that gay couples are doing this out of anger. And I'm not suggesting that the entire movement's goal is to destroy marriage, but rather that the destruction of the insitution is a likely result regardless of whether that result was desired. And, I seem to remember seeing a lot of looting on television during the LA Riot. My memory may be fuzzy, but quite a few of the looters seemed quite giddy about the crimes they were committing. Does that joy then justify them breaking the law? Does the joy now justify Newsom breaking the law? I doubt it does in either case, and I suspect that there is no real commentary in those pictures: it's merely an attempt to move this debate from the intellectual to the emotional. So, we've pretty well run the distance of attacks. We've gone from arguing over the actual issue to attacking judges and city officials with whom you don't agree, to attacking the court system as a whole, to attacking pictures. Odd. No, it isn't. You're the ones who first celebrated city officials committing crimes, and we're just responding. You're the ones who first introduced photography as if it was relevant, and we're just responding. Sorry if you think we're wrong to "attack" the idea that city officials should be free to break the law. Sorry if you think we're wrong to "attack" the idea that photography somehow settles an issue of this complexity. But rather than noting how odd you think it is that we do these things, why don't you explain why we're wrong to do so? Explain how elected officials should be above the law, and explain how Kodak moments should take precedence over the Constitution.