First of all, the place was packed. The Representatives Hall was filled nearly to capacity, with probably 300+ attendees, pro and con. When I first arrived, the white "One Marriage / One Man + One Woman" stickers seemed to be everywhere...

... but maybe there was a rally elsewhere, because by the time the hearing actually started, green "Support Marriage Equality" stickers had caught up and even may have outnumbered the white ones.

Signs had to be left outside, though a few people snuck theirs in -- only to be confiscated when they first appeared.

The chairwoman of the committee brought the session to order and announced that speakers would be limited to three minutes due to the number of people who wished to speak. She then introduced the primary sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jim Splaine, a man in his early sixties(-ish?) who described being forced "to hide deep in the closet" because he had first been elected Representative when he could have been arrested for simply being gay...

-- and right as he was winding up, three or four loud voices yelled "TIME'S UP!" and "TIME!" It was just the first hint of the vitriol that peeped out occasionally the entire hearing. The chairwoman gavelled them down and threatened them with ejection, granting a bit of courtesy time to Rep. Splaine as the sponsor of the bill.

After that, speakers pro and con alternated. Many of the arguments are those you might expect -- including at least one that left spittle on the microphone -- but a few were surprises.

Among the speakers was the lead counsel for the New Jersey facility which refused service to a same-sex couple which was referenced in the NOM ad. His arguments were along the lines of "think what a domino effect this will have: you won't be able to discriminate here, or there, or anywhere else for that matter" -- can't remember the exact items he cited, but housing was among them.

Several members of the clergy got up to speak, some on each side. I got to meet Bishop Gene Robinson after he spoke; that was a real pleasure (a fairly short guy with a 10 foot tall personality -- he seems like he would be a great guy to get to know better.)

Several people rose to speak on behalf of gay or lesbian family members. I particularly remember one red-haired college-age girl who said she could not imagine any heterosexual parents being better at raising children than her lesbian older sister, who apparently had brought her up. One woman got up to say she had two children, "one of each -- not one boy and one girl, but one straight daughter and one lesbian daughter," and were they supposed to want something for the one child that could not be given to the other?

Anyway... after listening for a couple of hours I had to leave, but I penned some written testimony and handed it in based on what I had seen so far. I wasn't planning to, but it seemed like an important point to make, and is actually the point of this diary (for which I apologize for taking so long to get to), so I reproduce it here, as closely as I can remember:

Dear Legislators;

I've never written testimony before, give me a break. :D

I was not planning to submit testimony today but what I have seen here changed my mind. I expected to see all the standard arguments, to which I am sure you've heard the counterarguments: Separation of Church and State requires that any law motivated by "it's God's Law" either not be passed or be revoked as soon as it is identified. I, a heterosexual, am shamed and demeaned by any privilege I gain by that status which is not generally available to all people. There are no laws preventing marriage for the infertile or the elderly, nor laws against divorce of couples with children. "Tradition" would require we accept slaves and women as chattels and live in caves. If this legal change requires extra work to change the law and the land, then we should do it! Because this is how we will expose unwitting discrimination. But instead of making these arguments I want to draw your attention to something I saw today. One side of this discussion spoke of fear of change, fear of the unknown, of order through stagnation, of distrust and (at least) distaste of a part of our citizenry they regard as second class. The other side of this discussion spoke of ethics, and joy, and love. I know which side of this discussion I want to be on. I urge your support of H.B. 436. Thank you.

Update: Rec'd! Thanks. While teabaggers make good targets, a steady diet of mockery is tiring.