“Having two parents who can feel and express love for each other, and give it in abundance to their children, that’s what matters. It doesn’t matter what the identities of those parents are.”
- Heidi Nortonsmith, one of the original gay couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2004.

Here’s more about how things have gone for the past 5 years…

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

According to the latest state figures, through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts — 64 percent of them between women — out of 170,209 marriages in all. Some consequences have been tangible — a boom for gay-friendly wedding businesses, the exit of a Roman Catholic charity from the adoption business — and some almost defy description.

“Having your committed relationships recognized — to say it’s deeply meaningful is to trivialize it,” said Mary Bonauto, lead lawyer in the landmark lawsuit. “I know people who’d been together 20 years who say, ‘Getting married — it knocked my socks off.’”

Still there are issues that these folks have to deal with, not the least of which is that their unions aren’t recognized federally. So that creates a whole host of problems, not the least of which is taxation. And with a president in the White House who claims he doesn’t think gays should be allowed to get married, it might be a long time before these problems are solved.

New Hampshire was expected, but still a swing state in the grand scheme of things.

The others were not surprises in the least.

A total of 56 electoral votes.

Carlson said Thursday that the Illinois senator’s stances on the Iraq war, the economy and green energy goals won him over. Carlson, who served from 1991 to 1998, also cited recent comments by GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann questioning whether politicians have “pro-America or anti-America views.”

“Regardless of our party, regardless of our partisan inclinations, there is no interest more compelling than the interest in the well-being of the United States,” Carlson said at a gathering of Obama supporters at the state Capitol.

Carlson added, “He has laid out for this nation a vision for a national purpose.”

Today it’s Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld…

“Senator Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world,” Weld said in a statement released Friday. “We need a president who will lead based on our common values and Senator Obama demonstrates an ability to unite and inspire.

“Throughout this campaign I’ve watched his steady leadership through trying times and I’m confident he is the best candidate to move our country forward,” Weld said. [...]

Last year, Weld came to New Hampshire to campaign for another former Massachusetts governor, Republican Mitt Romney, who ended his bid for the presidential nomination in February.

And so it goes…

From The Page:

Chicago, IL – Today, Former Democratic National Committee Chair and Massachusetts supderdelegate Paul G. Kirk, Jr. endorsed Barack Obama.

The endorsement brings the total number of superdelegates to endorse Barack Obama to 253. Senator Obama is 279 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination.

This puts Obama at 16 to 11 in superdelegate pickups post-PA.

Numbers after the jump.

Obama superdelegate pickups:
Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (MA), DNC – May 2, 2008
John Patrick (TX), DNC – May 1, 2008
Barbara Flynn Currie (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Todd Stroger (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Richard M. Daley (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Joe Andrew (IN), DNC – May 1, 2008
Bruce Braley (IA), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Lois Capps (CA), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Baron Hill (IN), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Ben Chandler (KY), Representative – Apr 29, 2008
Richard Machacek (IA), DNC – Apr 29, 2008
Jeff Bingaman (NM), Senator – Apr 28, 2008
Charlene Fernandez (AZ), DNC & State Vice Chair – Apr 26, 2008
David Wu (OR), Representative – Apr 24, 2008
Audra Ostergard (NE), DNC & State Vice Chair – Apr 23, 2008
Brad Henry (OK), Governor – Apr 23, 2008

Clinton superdelegate pickups:
Andrew Cuomo (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
Thomas DiNapoli (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
C. Virginia Field (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
Carmen Arroyo (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
John Olsen (CT), DNC – May 1, 2008
Luisette Cabanas (PR), DNC & Territory Vice Chair – Apr 30, 2008
William George (PA), DNC – Apr 30, 2008
Ike Skelton (MO), Representative, Apr 29, 2008
Mike Easley (NC), Governor – Apr 28, 2008
Kathy Sullivan (NH), Add-On – Apr 26, 2008
John Tanner (TN), Representative – Apr 23, 2008

Interestingly, while the concept of marriage is intertwined in religious traditions, the concept of divorce is a much more secular construct. I’m sure some states would completely reject the notion of allowing gay divorces on the principle that granting divorces is too close to recognizing gay marriage. However, if two consenting adults want to separate their belongings and obligations, who cares what gender they are? There is arguably a greater public interest in the state allowing for legal gay separation than legal gay union. A couple who cannot legally separate will either burden the legal system or resort to less legal solutions – both of which are less desirable than simply letting them go their separate ways.

Conceivably, we could be closer to widespread legalized gay divorce than we are to widespread legalized gay marriage. I’d prefer to keep the discussion on the legalization of gay marriage but I guess those of us who support such changes must also accept the necessary evil of gay divorce.

And yes, I do support gay marriage. You may now revoke my rightwing echo chamber credentials.

I agree with Josh Marshall. The Clintons are trying to spin Obama loss in Massachusetts, but he made up a ton of ground in a very short amount of time.

From TPM:

In our poll tracker, we have six polls of the Massachusetts race going back to January 17th. One of those had Obama ahead, and that was by two points, though admittedly it was one of the most recent. Yes, he had both senators behind him as well as the governor. But Obama also went from being behind by something like two to one margin a couple weeks ago to a much closer race. What’s true is that there were a slew of states — Massachusetts, New Jersey and California come to mind. Had Obama been able to grab one of those, it would have been a big punch for him. It would have been really bad for Hillary. And it really would have defined the night. But he wasn’t able to pull it off. Seems like he kind of did in Missouri. But that’s not quite in the same category. In any case, there’s a ton of spin from both sides right now, especially furious since this was so close in so many ways. But the Obama had to win Massachusetts line is just silly.

Indeed, although Missouri might be a bigger story because we nearly always pick the eventual nominee. That shouldn’t be ignored.

Big win for Hillary since Kennedy and Kerry backed Obama.

Clinton 42% (-2)
Obama 36% (+3)
Edwards 12% (-2)

Then Kennedy’s endorsement has helped Obama in Massachusetts…

A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary finds Hillary Clinton attracting 43% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 37%. The survey was conducted on the night that Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama but before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

Next, California shows signs of swinging Obama’s way…

The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California’s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by five percentage points. It’s Clinton 38% Obama 33% and John Edwards at 12%. Dennis Kucinich picks up 3% of the vote and 13% are not sure.

Obama is also gaining in New York…

A new poll from Public Policy Polling (D) shows that Barack Obama might be sneaking up on Hillary Clinton in her home state of New York. Hillary leads with 45% of the vote, followed by Obama at 33% and John Edwards with 10%. In the demographic breakdown, Hillary leads 44%-29% among whites, Obama 44%-32% among African-Americans, and Hillary 64%-31% among Hispanics.

And he’s tied in Connecticut…

New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts 40% of the vote and so does Illinois Senator Barack Obama. John Edwards is a very distant third at 11% while 3% say they’d vote for some other candidate and 6% are not sure.

Lastly, Rasmussen proposes an interesting scenario…

Today, Clinton is leading in most of the Super Tuesday states and is expected to walk away from February 5 with more delegates than anyone else. But, since the Democrats award delegates proportionally, Obama will pick up a decent share as well. John Edwards will get some too.

Add to that the fact that 20% of the delegates are so-called Super Delegates–Democratic National Committee members, members of Congress, Governors, and other party leaders formally unpledged to any candidate. Theoretically, any candidate who wins 30% of the delegates through Primaries and Caucuses could end up grabbing the nomination with the support of the Super Delegates. For Obama, that becomes even more possible if he were to ultimately win the endorsement of John Edwards.

It is now possible to imagine a scenario where Senator Clinton wins battle after battle, primary after primary, but loses the nomination. If the Democratic Party establishment becomes disenchanted with the tone of her campaign, anything could happen. Eventually, Obama would have to win some more primaries, but a few late victories could be enough to win the hearts and votes of the Super Delegates.

One thing’s for sure. There’s still a lot of time between now and Tuesday. Actually, almost an eternity in this wild primary season. Will Obama continue to close on Hillary?

More as it develops.