[King Black Robe]

No, the GOP is not for civil unions. They would lose a great many of their members if they were. A minority in the GOP favors civil unions. What the FMA will do is allow state legislatures to establish civil unions IF THEY WANT TO. Your point about CVs being the same as marriage is a good one, and I agree. I think we absolutely should not allow civil unions, but the principle of self-rule is also important. That's why I think we have to allow states to decide. Hopefully they will decided wisely and not allow civil unions. But at the point where the majority of a state favors that sort of thing, will denying them make a difference?

We would be a better country and a better culture if we decided nationwide that civil unions and marriage for unnature unions was a bad thing and unlawful. To insert some truth that the media avoids, no state has yet disagreed with that principle without being forced by judicial activists. So the biggest issue right now is the judicial threat. Our culture still defines marriage in the traditional/natural way. It's the judges who do not. We must restore republican government where legislatures make laws and not courts.

[Cboldt]

No, the GOP is not for civil unions. They would lose a great many of their members if they were. A minority in the GOP favors civil unions.

My impression is that the GOP has not come out clearly one way or the other, but George Bush has hinted at accepting some form of civil union as a matter of principle.

Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage (washingtonpost.com)

"Bush said he wants to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman but allow state legislatures to determine whether same-sex couples should receive various benefits, a formula that apparently would allow the kind of civil unions and domestic partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California."

But at the point where the majority of a state favors that sort of thing, will denying them make a difference?

I'm not sure what you mean by "will it make a difference?" As a matter of impacting social structure, I happen to believe that accepting same-sex family structure will make a profound difference, and it's a difference that I object to. As a matter of preventing the change (being able to "make a difference" and prevent the change), I am pessimistic. As I said, the horse is out of the barn, and the social change that I object to will happen over time.

Our culture still defines marriage in the traditional/natural way. It's the judges who do not.

Most of us define mariiage in the traditional way, and few of us assert objections to allowing same-sex couples to raise children. It's not just the judges, although I do agree, the judical activists are spearheading the matter, and causing a confrontation.

We must restore republican government where legislatures make laws and not courts.

I certainly support that objective. I'm skeptical that a constitutional amendment will cause that result.