On Monday morning, when municipal buildings across Massachusetts open at nine o’clock, hundreds of couples will already be standing in line with blood tests, state identification, and 50 bucks in cash. Despite conservative efforts to petition the Supreme Court for intervention, on May 17, the pilgrims’ state will become the first in the nation to marry same-sex couples.

We learned in elementary school that the pilgrims founded Massachusetts in order to find religious freedom, and so in a way it’s fitting that the former colony now resume its position as a civil liberties trailblazer. Its governor is not so happy with this honor. Mitt Romney’s orders for municipal employees to block out-of-state residents from marrying surely pleases the protestors who line up outside Faneuil Hall to protest sexual sin.

But do those protestors support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage? As Sunday’s New York Times reports, maybe not. The amendment, now dead in Congress, isn’t gaining the kind of support hoped for among conservative Christians. Groups such as the Alliance for Marriage are getting nervous and hoping that the sight of the Massachusetts marriages prompts a greater outcry.

When President Bush called for the amendment back in February, he stated that ”On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard.“ But perhaps Bush and Romney and their fellow conservatives are mishearing. Perhaps the people are more concerned with other issues. It’s hard to believe that the sight of men and women in wedding dresses will stir up greater wrath or sorrow than the pictures we’ve seen these past weeks in our newspapers. To condemn commitments made out of love seems almost petty in comparison. The conservative mission to stop gay marriage is far from over, but maybe it’s getting old, and a little hard of hearing.

llouison