I'm surprised and saddened at the dismay the pledge decision and the gay marriage issue has evoked here. I don't see how the pledge decision is a matter of immediate concern except for those involved with electoral politics at a high level, i.e., a Dem candidate or campaign manager who has to be concerned with soundbite smears. The same goes for gay marriage, the divisiveness of which I believe has been greatly overstated (no realignment in the Presidential race in '04 in those states that had referenda on it on the ballot, etc.)
Furthermore, the pledge originally did not include the phrase "under God" and what the plaintiff in the case mentioned in the article linked above seeks is to restore the original wording, not abolish the pledge; and given that marriage is really first and foremost a *civil* institution (it's the state that grants clergy the right to perform them, not vice versa) and that currently het couples have a monopoly on the benefits that go with marriage, gay marriage seems a simple, straightforward human rights issue.
I don't know the degree or level at which other people posting on this topic are involved in the official political machinery of the US. I just try to follow the news and support what seems to me to be the right thing to do. Maybe some of you have jobs or non-job positions that might be in danger if you were caught supporting the wrong thing (I'm not saying that facetiously, BTW-- people have been fired for blogging, so why not posting to an email listserv with public archives?) Given that, I hope that beneath the concerns about the electoral spectacle, everybody here agrees that it really isn't a big deal to return the pledge to its original wording, and that gay marriage is human rights issue.
smg