Gay marriage vaults to forefront of politically charged issues

[Feanorcurufinwe]

No issue has so energized Christian conservatives since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. Some veterans of the anti-abortion movement have turned their energy to the new cause of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and define marriage as "the union of a man and a woman."

Leaders behind the proposed amendment say they're optimistic that they can get a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, as well as ratification by at least 38 states.

<snip>

Recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center found that most Americans oppose gay marriage, and that that opposition is growing. In the Gallup poll, 61 percent expressed opposition, up from 55 percent in the summer. Pew put the opposition at 59 percent, up from 51 percent.

"There may be more backlash. More Americans, particularly conservative Americans, may come together in opposition to the idea of legalized same-sex marriage," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief. "It's a very divisive and emotional, deeply felt issue."

That's bad news for Democrats, who tend to be far more supportive of gay rights. While President Bush denounced the Massachusetts ruling, his Democratic rivals offered varying degrees of praise.

<snip>

Other Democratic presidential candidates who support civil unions, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, say they oppose gay marriage. But the distinction between marriage and civil unions almost surely will be overlooked in attack ads.

"The debate over homosexual marriages has now shifted in a dramatic way into the presidential election. If I were a Democratic presidential candidate, this would not be welcome news," said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, a self-described "pro-life Democrat" who serves as president of Your Catholic Voice, a political advocacy group.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7303131.htm

As far as I know DK is the only candidate who has come out in favor of gay marriage. Is that correct?

I feel woefully ignorant, so I must ask: what exactly is the distinction between 'civil unions' and 'marriage'?

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Geez...don't ask me

I just wish the issue would lay low then "come out" after the elections because that's one wedge issue Bush will pound on until the chickens come home!
Yes DK is the only one for outright gay marriages.
The Repugs want an issue to divide us and I bet it will if we don't be careful.
Some others on my smaller "home" discussion forum at democrats.us have been discussing it. What we've decided is we need to create wedge issues for Bush. So far we've come up with quite a few.
Alaska drilling, job losses + no education + no unskilled jobs, poor foreign relations = trade wars/cold wars/literal wars, medicare/healthcare expansion or reform, you know, things all Americans would support that he or the repugs don't.

[dsc]

2. Some answers

First, Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton all favor gay marriage. Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt favor a national law requiring gay relationships to be recognized by states (Kerry and Gephardt would call it civil unions while Dean would let the states name it). All three would immediately give all federal rights associated with marriage to civil unions. Clark, I think, has the same position. Lieberman would do this on a right by right basis (there are over a thousand). I don't know Edwards' position.

Civil uniions is what Vermont calls its system to grant marriage rights to its gay and lesbian citizens. For citizens of Vermont, as far as rights Vermont can grant, they are completely equal. That would include but not be limited to, joint adoption, benefits with Vermont employers, inheritance rights, right to control medical care, use of divorce courts and laws to end the relationship, joint mortgage and rental rights. As to federal law it did nothing. But neither would marriage.

For people who are citizens of other states but go to Vermont to get a civil union it has no legal force (except in CA) due to no other state having civil unions. In over 30 states marriage would not have either due to mini DOMA's. Marriage would have possibly been valid in the other states but likely court or legislative action would ensue.

The only real legal difference between civil unions and marriage is the possibiliity of moving as a legal couple from state A to state B. There is no reason civil unions couldn't do that as well.

[gottaB]

6. Excellent response--one quibble

The legal distinction between marriage and civil union, what is it? You know Braun's argument that gay marriage is already the law of the land is based on her reading of the constitution. It was the same argument she made against DOMA, that it's unconstitutional. She cites the full faith and credit clause, and of course Loving v. Virginia.

The wingnuts hate that argument, but their hatred reveals more than their scapegoating of gays: It shows their utter contempt for the constitution, the bill of rights from the establishment clause all the way on down to the tenth amendment, the balance of powers, the rule of law, constitutional democracy itself. By lunging at this one full force, they may as well be painting a bullseye on their big old rogue elephant heart. (Do circus elephants go rogue?--whatever). They are not conservatives by any stretch. That's where Democrats should attack them.

Dean's position strikes me as being rather astute (certainly more astute than I'd given him credit for on first glance). It deserves fleshing out on its own. But if you want to know how to get from Dean's position to Braun's, in terms of legal principles, not politics or rhetoric, then the answer is simple: Brown v. Board. That's Carol's argument. Does it really apply? :shrug:

I read an interview with John Kerry in the Advocate where this question was put to him about miscegenation laws and his reply was:

I don’t know if it’s discrimination. I’d have to think about that. I haven’t done the comparison between the two. It’s worth analyzing, but my quick reaction would be that there is a distinction between them. It’s really about the integrity of a certain institution rather than a form of discrimination. But I’d have to go think about that a lot harder.

That was before the hrc forum. Hmm.

It seems to me that if you follow the logic of applying Loving, and see the refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as form of discrimination, then with all the talk of civil unions vs. marriage you are led to a Brown v. Board kind of argument, and that means a there is a very real (il)legal difference between the two. On principal. Now if you could show that civil unions didn't discriminate in practice, that would be something, but I don't see how it could avoid butting up against Brown v. Board and either that would have to be revisited, or you might end up arguing that discrimination against gays was the same yet somehow different from other kinds of discrimination--well, I'm not sure I like where that leads. Where I want to be is where everybody enjoys civil rights and liberties and the government discriminates against none of its citizens.

Oh, it's late my feet are cold and no matter who wins the nomination the essential thing is to stop Bush, to appoint honest judges to the federal courts, and then just bide our time--I do appreciate the "in the meantime" sorts of arguments, because there's only so much that can be accomplished from the oval office, and as long as Bush is sitting there ain't nothing good going to come of it.

Good resource I found on gay marriage legal issues.

[no name no slogan]

3. Marriage vs. Civil Unions

First of all, there's two kinds of marriage. Religious marriage is the kind that happens in a church/synagogue/etc, while civil marriage is something that is recognized as a legal relationship by the laws of the land.

Marriage already exists in the law in every state and at the federal level, while "civil unions" are still pretty new and not acknowledged anywhere except Vermont.

If you look at the tax law in particular, you see many references to marriage-- but not many in reference to "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". Marriage also implies rights to property and inheritance, too, which you don't get with civil unions no matter how well worded the law is. So part of it is expediency-- no laws need to be rewritten in the case of marriage, while trying to rewrite every law to change "marriage" to "marriage and/or civil union" would be a nightmare.

IMHO, there are two main reasons for civil marriage over civil unions. First, civil marriage is well defined in the law. Spouses have certain rights and obligations to each other. There's not much vaguery or room for interpretation in civil marriage. "Civil Union", OTOH, is a fairly recent term concocted to confer a second-class set of "rights" on a group of people.

Second, a "civil union" will still NOT be regarded as a marriage, regardless of the rights and priviledges it grants. By giving GLBT folk the same rights as heteros, it guarantees that we will ALL be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Another difference with the Kucinich position is that he supports marriage at the FEDERAL level. That means equal rights for everyone, across the country, REGARDLESS of where they live. That means you're as entitled to getting married in Alabama as you are in Massachusetts.

Also, those polls can be VERY misleading-- especially since they probably don't differentiate between a legal/civic marriage and a religious one. I'd check the wording of the questions to be sure, but I have a feeling that if the question were reworded to something like "should gay couples have the same rights as straight couples" you'd probably end up with different results.

Hope this isn't too long-winded and makes some sense! :hi:

[dsc]

4. some of what you wrote is just false

First, there are three candidates who support giving federal rights to holders of civil unions and four if you count the incomplete list Lieberman would give. Kucinich isn't the only candidate who supports giving gay relationships federal rights. He isn't even the only one supporting gay marriage (CMB and Sharpton do too).

Second, Vermont law does give civil unions legal status. Here I think you just misspoke in part of your post since the beginning seems to acknowledge that but also CA now does so for domestic partners. This would be no big deal to do by law federally.

[no name no slogan]

9. Seriously, do you think it wouldn't be a big deal?

to redo federal law to reflect "civil unions" and marriages as the same thing? Do you KNOW how huge the tax code is, for example, and how much rewriting it would take?

And don't think that it wouldn't take a rewrite, either, because some wingnut will use the fact that "civil union" isn't in the written law and find a loophole to exploit it.

And do you honestly think that this new language won't go through several court challenges, either?

Why should GLBT folk have to get "civil unions" when us straight folk can get civil MARRIAGES. It's just mincing words on part of the spineless who fear that the right wing will dictate the terms of the debate. "Civil unions" is a complete cop-out. Plus, add to the fact that to most candidates it would somehow be alright if we did it on a state level (instead of at the federal level) just makes the whole "civil unions" claim bogus and indefensible if you agree that GLBT folk should get equal treatment under the law.

Dean supports "civil unions" for GLBT folk. He's even said that he doesn't like the idea of "gay marriage". "civil unions" == second-class citizenship. That's like giving African-American slaves "move away from master" rights as opposed to complete emancipation.

To give gays "civil unions" and not legal marriages shows a complete lack of spine and courage of conviction. It's not "pragmatic", nor "moderate", it's second-class citizenship. It's either right or wrong for EVERYONE to be treated EQUALLY. It's the whole BASIS for the founding of this country.

[dsc]

11. Unlike you

I actually am gay and I know in my heart that we won't win gay marriage at the ballot box and we won't have a chance in the courts either if Bush serves 4 more years. I would prefer civil unions that had federal rights, which I think we can get, to nothing. And I firmly believe those are our choices for at least the next couple of decades.

As to the relative ease in the technical sense just author a law which says. Wherever marriage occurs in the federal code substitute marriage and civil unions. Evidently the Patriot act did this kind of thing in some cases.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. You are both right.

nnns has convinced me that ultimately, it must be 'marriage'. But I agree with you that strategically it is better to move incrementally. Civil unions are a good first step.

[no name no slogan]

16. I think we agree more than disagree, but...

If you plan to "settle" for civil unions at the start of the fight, what makes you think you'll even get that far? If we put marriage out on the table, the Rethugs will naturally have a fit-- but if we counter with "civil unions", it will seem like a compromise. And may even be "acceptable" considering our previous offer.

Idealistic? Maybe. But IMHO it's smarter to start from a position that may seem extreme to some and end up with a compromise that's closer to what we REALLY want than to start from an already compromised position.

:hi:

[dsc]

22. I think who we are compromising with

is more important than the position we start from. If Bush gets elected in 2004 both gay marriage and civil unions are dead. If any Democrat wins we are likely to get civil unions to begin with and judges that will give us marriage later. That is the best solution I can come up with.

[no name no slogan]

40. I have my doubts

At best, the other Dems support some form of "civil union" at the state level-- NOT at the Federal level. In other words, it's highly doubtful the law would even change at the federal level if we elect a "civil unions" candidate.

It all reminds me too much of Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fiasco which led to more gays getting kicked out of the military than before.

And, I hate to say it, but Dean is a triangulator in the Clinton mold-- he's even said as much himself. I have no doubt he'd be only too eager to "accomodate" the right wingnuts who'd tear him apart on this issue.

Also, if we as Democrats and liberals "settle" for civil unions, it's highly unlikely we would get true marriage rights for everyone in our lifetime. I can just see the rightwing meme: "what more do you want? We GAVE you civil unions, didn't we? Now leave us alone!".

This is PRECISELY the reason why we need to FIGHT for as much as we want RIGHT AT THE START. If we start in a compromised position it may very well get adopted, but kiss any chance of real change goodby in our lifetimes.

[MercutioATC]

18. DSC, since we've actually met, I'm curious about your opinion...

We know that we're both Dean supporters but I'm not gay, so I have an opinion but it doesn't affect me directly. Politics aside, as a gay person, is the "marriage" label important to you if "civil unions" covered everybody both gay and straight and "marriages" were a religious ceremony only?

I know that I feel this is the best solution, but I may be less sensitive to the issue than I thought.

Again, I see any other solution as either a "separate but equal" compromise or too divisive to gain enough support to pass. What's the solution?

[dsc]

19. a rose by any other name

smells just as sweetly. I don't give a damn what it is called as long as it is equal in all, or very close to all, respects. I am not claiming my position is the same as all, or even a majority of gays and lesbians (though I suspect the majority do agree with me). I think full marriage is utterly impossible at the ballot box and that civil unions is the best available thing.

[MercutioATC]

20. I hear ya and I realize (to quote Margaret Cho) you're not "THE Gay", but

I was interested in your personal feelings. If we say that only "unions" are legal, but you're also free to have a religious "marriage" if you'd like, would this still considered a slight to GLBT couples?

It seems like a very fair and workable solution to ME, but I'dhate to sound like an idiot by supporting something that's offensive to the GLBT community. The arguement I've heard for the necessity of "gay marriage" is the "separate but equal" arguement. Would a solution like this solve that?

[dsc]

21. that sounds very equal to me

I would think that would get the support of most gays and lesbians.

[MercutioATC]

23. Thanks for the input. Like I said, it seems to cover all of the bases to

me, but I don't really have a horse in this race (well, I do in the sense that equality for EVERYBODY will improve ALL of our lives, but it doesn't affect me directly (mostly because I don't plan to marry again)).

[loyalsister]

5. This was predicted

by a state rep. I know. Interesting thing happened to me recently. I've been talking to local candidates a lot. A friend recently alerted me to a candidate. I assumed candidate was Dem because he is gay, so I wanted to talk to him. Nope he's a republican. The real absurdity is that my state is one that recently passed a DOMA. I will never understand these things!!

[MercutioATC]

7. My solution: Make "marriage" a purely religious state

and make "civil unions" the legal state. Couples who currently get "married" also have to obtain a legal marriage certificate and file it with their state. Instead of calling these "marriage certificates", call them something else without the "marriage" label. This way, all couples, regardles of sexual orientation, would have the same legal rights and follow the same legal process. This legal status would be recognized in all states, as it currently is.

I think this is the best solution because we're not trying to define "marriage", which is a state that some religions tend to get sensitive about. Making "marriage" a porely religious designation would let both parties have what they want (currently, a heterosexual couple can get "married" by a Judge/Mayor/Ship's Captain with absolutely NO religious figure present and nobody views it differently than a "marriage" performed by a priest).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Your suggestion makes me gravitate

towards no name no slogan's argument.

Because as an atheist, according to your proposal, I couldn't get 'married'.

We already have seperation of church and state so whatever the government does, doesn't affect the religious side of it.

[MercutioATC]

17. So, being an athiest, you really care what it's CALLED?

The bottom line is that everybody would have a "civil union" if they wanted it recognized legally.

If you felt strongly about it, you could also get "married" in the religious venue of your choice.

I fail to see a problem here. This is true "equality" without separatism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. There are alot more social and psycological impacts from the names we give

things than we usually think about. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but call it a turd and it is going to be a lot harder to use in your songwriting.

[MercutioATC]

25. True, but results are what matter. As long as the new policy:

1) grants equal rights to ALL Americans and

2) does so without creating a "separate but equal" situation,

I fail to see the problem. By clarifying the line betwen legal status and religiously sanctioned status, we eliminate another of the antiquated underpinnings of our legal system, replacing it with a more enlightened, secular basis.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Well that distinction already exists.

I'm married. My marriage has absolutely no religious element whatsover. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[MercutioATC]

27. Do you not understand or are you being intentionally obtuse?

I'll try to type slowly...

Yes, "marriage" is both a legal and religious institution now. Proposals for "gay marriage" often result in objections from religious groups on the grounds that their beliefs do not extent "marriage" rights to same-sex couples.

One solution is to completely separate the language used.

"Marriage" would be a non-legal religious state.

"Civil Union" would be a legal non-religious state.

Couples in either Heterosexual or GLBT relationships would be guaranteed the LEGAL right to a "Civil Union".

Couples of any orientation would also be able to secure a religious sanction ("marriage") of their union as their religion allowed.

This would not deny GLBT couples equal rights under the law nor would it force religious groups to recognize GLBT unions. By keeping the two completely separate (with the same set of rules for ALL couples, regardless of orientation) it assures that no "separate but equal" circumstance arises.

What do you not understand?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. I'm just plain stupid. If being stupid means disagreeing with you.

You don't have to type slowly, all you have to do is accept that everyone doesn't agree with you. And that doesn't mean they're obtuse.


I don't accept your premise. You say "Yes, "marriage" is both a legal and religious institution now."


No, it's not. We have separation of church and state. I am married and it is in no way whatsover a 'religious institution'.


Now if you want to explain to me how I, an athiest married to an athiest by a justice of the peace, am participating in a religious institution, please make your case without insulting me.

[MercutioATC]

29. Wow! THAT was a pretty severe edit..and when did I call you "stupid"?

I've posted 6 posts on this thread explaining what I was talking about in great detail. You then respond to one of them with a post that makes NO sense if you had read my other posts by claiming "that distinction already exists."

I'm not calling you "stupid", I'm just questioning whether you had difficulty understanding my other posts in this thread that already answered your question.

(on edit)

O.K., you've edited your post TWICE now, and I'm having difficulty keeping up. I'm not proposing that you're "stupid" for not agreeing with me, I'm asking what dificulty you have understanding my posts.

Again, I know that YOU don't feel that your marriage is a religious thing, but many religious groups DO take issue with "gay marriage" based on the doctrines of their religion. The fact that we call the religious ceremony a "marriage" and the legal union of two people a "marriage" further complicates the issue. Defining two SEPARATE terms would help, in my estimation.

Therefore, that distinction does NOT already exist, as your previous post claims.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Please just explain

in what way my marriage is religious.

[MercutioATC]

32. It may not be to you. "Marriage" IS both a religious and legal state

in this country, however. Therefore, we are faced with choices:

1) Keep things as they are, and deny GLBT couples legal recognition of their union.

2) Allow everybody to get "married" under the current LEGAL definition of marriage, regardless of orientation.

3) Use separate terms for the religious and legal recognition of unions. Let religion have "marriage" and they can't claim that the government is trying to force them to recognize an institution tht their religion forbids. Let ANY couple have a "civil union" that would grant LEGAL status to the union.

By removing the "gay marriage/straight marriage" distinction and classifying solely by legal/religious status, we eliminate a possible "separate but equal" scenario.

Again, to answer, your marriage may not be religious to you, but the "married" label means different things to different people. Clarifying the issue by assigning different terms to "religious" and "legal" states would help, in my estimation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Yes, it means different things to different people.

Religious people have all sorts of ideas - so what? People are entitled to believe what they want. But legally the government does not recognize any religious element to marriage.

Your assertion: " "Marriage" IS both a religious and legal state " is just plain wrong.

You are just displaying a basic lack of understanding of the principle of separation of church and state.

[MercutioATC]

34. THIS is what I mean about being obtuse. (in response to below, too)

I've explained this 8 ways from Sunday. I KNOW that the government does not officially recognize a religious element to marriage. However, the government chooses to CALL it "marriage", which just happens to be the same thing religion calls it. I believe we would be better served by using separate words for the legal and religious states.

I really don't se how you could fail to understand my point. Disagreeing with it is fine, but haven't said that. You've not responded to what I've said, you've stated repeatedly that marriage is not necessarily religious (something I've stated from the beginning). The issue, IMHO, is NOT that marriage is not NECESSARILY religious in nature, it's that we use the same term for the religious and legal state.

Again, I've stated this repeatedly. I stand by my prior question. Either you don't understand or you're intentionally CHOOSING to be obtuse...otherwise you'd disagree with my statement, not make erroneous statements.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. I do understand your point. And I think it's wrong.

I've tried to be polite but the fact is your idea is just plain stupid.

Redefining words to satisfy the religious beliefs of people? The federal government is now going to get into the business of telling us what words mean?

[MercutioATC]

36. Well, at least you understand...shame it took us so long to accomplish

that.

I respect your opinion that the idea is "just plain stupid". Judging from our past conversations, I'd start to worry if you agreed with me.

However, as I'm sure you realize, I'm not advocating we redefine words "to satisfy the religious beliefs of people". I'm advocating that we use different words for different things to make those differences very clear. "Marriage" as a religious state and "marriage" as a legal state are two different things. I think it's important to make this distinction very clear.

Regarding "the federal government now get into the business of telling us what words mean", they've been doing that for decades. Certain words have legal definitions that specifically spell out what they "mean". I'm simply suggesting that we replace one word with another to draw a distinction.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. I understand that you just don't get it.

Your premises are flawed and you are not willing to examine them.

[MercutioATC]

46. Of course I'm willing to examine them. You haven't offered an opposing

arguement.

Give me one and I'll consider it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Don't you know what 'obtuse' means?

:wtf: You don't even understand your own insults?

[MercutioATC]

37. I DO understand, and I stand by the assessment.

Please notice that I said "intentionally" obtuse. I didn't believe you were "stupid", I believed that you were intentionally feigning a lack of understanding by refusing to address the issue.

I have no issue with you having a different view.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Rudeness and disrespect are not disallowed by DU rules.

And I do have a different view from you about whether that is an opportunity to be exploited.

[MercutioATC]

42. I don't feel this even comes CLOSE to a violation.

If you do, feel free to alert...that's why the button is there.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Your comments were rude, disrespectful, and entirely within the rules.

Congratulations. You've managed to follow the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit. Whooopee for you!

:yourock: NOT

[MercutioATC]

47. Whatever...

:eyes:

[helleborient]

10. Or you could call it heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage...

That is fair as well in a legal sense.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. 'Separate but Equal'?

[helleborient]

14. No, I don't like it...

But it is closer to being fair than "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight people, as John Kerry and Howard Dean advocate.

[MercutioATC]

48. That's not what Dean advocates...

He advocates making it mandatory that states create a legal mechanism for providing equal rights to GLBT couples. The states can call it what they like, but the requirement is still the same.

[Scott Lee]

15. This is where freepers are outting themselves as anti-freedom

Freedom lovers wouldn't care if two people of the same sex decided to marry. They would, accurately, see it as a private decision between two consenting adults.

Freepers, who obviously hate freedom, see it as a threat to heterosexual marriage and the death knell of the human race.

[adamblast]

41. Subject: Sorry, but "civil unions" is a consolation prize...

...from those who recognize that gays are discriminated against, but aren't willing to spend enough political capital for full equality. This applies to gays as well as straights.

Many, many gays want us to shut up about marriage and grab all the consolation prizes we can. I understand the feeling. Yes, civil unions are better than nothing. Yes, getting our equal relationship rights handed to us peicemeal, one at a time, is better than nothing.

But the courts are already paving the way for real marriage. It is, after all, what we deserve. We are not the ones that chose this. Sometimes you pick your battles, and sometimes the battles pick you.

Democratic candidates who are unwilling to stand up and favor real gay marriage--sorry, frontrunners--are refusing to stand up for me. They have decided that two southern bigot votes are worth my vote. They have *already* sold me out, and (like Clinton, with "don't ask, don't tell" and the DoMA) will only hurt me in the long run.

I've been planning to vote for Dean for the past 5 months. Now it looks like Kucinich, Braun or Sharpton are my only possible votes in the Democratic party.

[MercutioATC]

43. I understand the emotion behind this, but where's the substance?

Currently, anybody can go to Vermont and get a "civil union", gay or straight. The only difference is that other states aren't obliged to recognize the union legally unless it's a heterosexual relationship. Dean's position is to change that...to force the states to create a vehicle by which all unions, gay or straight, are treated equally in a legal sense.

My point isn't that GLBT couples don't deserve "marriage". It's that "marriage" is just a word. If the rights conferred are the same, why fight the battle for the word?

[adamblast]

44. Marriage may be only a word to you. To me...

...it's just as valid to call it a concept, or an institution or what-have-you. It's a real thing.

>>>> Currently, anybody can go to Vermont and get a
>>>> "civil union", gay or straight.

And how many straights will be getting "civil unions"??

Why in the world would any couple wanting their legal relationship rights puposely *choose* the lesser of the two institutions??

Our rights will always be subject to the whim of this week's politicians if they are founded on a system of "almost equality."

The point isn't why I demand real marriage. It's why you're willing to set up a whole new almost-marriage state of affairs simply to pander to those who are against us anyway.

[MercutioATC]

49. I guess I just don't consider it an "almost marriage" if the rights are

the same. Actually, to avoid a "separate but equal" situation, I'd like to see "marriage" lose any legal meaning and be a completely religious institution. "civil unions" (or whatever you want to call them) would be the ONLY legal state recognized by the law and would be available for ALL couples, straight or GLBT.

This way, the religious right couldn't turn it into a moral issue...it's simply a legal issue. Religions could feel free to put whatever restrictions on "marriage" they liked, without denying anybody their civil rights.

[Leovigild]

50. Why this hurts Democrats....

1. What triggers the public backlash is another thing. They see coming down the pike a wave of 70's style cultural left judicial activism imposing the agenda of West Hollywood on Middle America. This impatient unwillingness to take a case to the American people and work through the legislative process backfired in the 70s, leading to the Reagan-Bush era in response to bussing, abolition of the death penalty, Roe v Wade, affirmative action, etc...

2. It cripples the Democratic Party from within. Blacks and hispanics are deeply religious and basically culturally conservative. On Super Tuesday it will be fundamentalist southern black voters who decide the Democratic nominee, voters who have no more use for gay rights than white fundamentalists do. This is a brick wall Dean is going to crash against. Any pro-gay marriage Democratic nominee is going to crash against it too.