[John O]

Marriage as a state institution exists to provide for the future of society. It is in society's best interest to encourage, even subsidize, marriage as that is the absolute best environement to raise children.

Children of course are the next generation of the society, without them the society fails (see shakers). It is the duty of any society to provide itself the best next generation (yet another reason why palestinians will never amount to much, they sacrifice their future)

Only a union of a man married to a woman is the best environment for raising children.

A 'homosexual' union cannot produce children and is a harmful environment for children. Therefore it should never be encouraged or even allowed

A union of a man and a woman who are sterile would still serve as an excellent enviornment for children if they choose to adopt. This makes them worthy of subsidy.

Argee, The only reason for someone to support 'civil unions but not 'homosexual marriage' is that they are lying to themselves. They are 'homosexual' enablers but don't want to admit it.

We've gotten so wussy about offending people and treating others nicely that we are afraid to stand up and say "I don't care who you want to sleep with, It's not a marriage unless its a man and a woman" so we try to mollify our bruised sense of political correctness by supporting 'civil unions'

[ArGee]

Argee, The only reason for someone to support 'civil unions but not 'homosexual marriage' is that they are lying to themselves.

I want to believe that the majority of Americans are still smarter than that.

Maybe I'm just a fool.

Shalom.

[Gorjus]

You declare your opinions as though they were facts. I may even share some of those opinions. But declaring opinions is not really advancing an argument. You're welcome to those opinions (and as I said, I even share some of them), but they 'prove' nothing. The issue is related to the specific concept of civil law recognition of the comitted union of consenting adults and within that, the proper role of government under the US Constitution.

I don't want a nanny state that 'pushes' all these social goals you list, even if I agree they are valid social goals if achieved by means other than government intervention. The question was whether there is a valid (meaning, consistent with our Constitution) basis for precluding secular government recognition of a non-marriage commitment. Marriage does not depend on government recognition, it is a blessing from God. Societies have recognized the commitment made at marriage with an accompanying secular status documented by a 'marriage license.' As much as I think homosexuality is perverse and wrong, I don't see a valid Constitutional basis for government exclusion of those unions from secular recognition.

To address your 'enabler' comment, I may indeed be an enabler of homosexuals, but it is in the same sense that I am an 'enabler' of Democrats and other socialists because I don't want government to intervene in determining what political parties can exist. I believe the proper way to cause Democrats to cease to exist is to vote them out of office everywhere they pop up - meaning, use public opinion, not the force of law to discriminate against them.

I would choose the same way to keep homosexuality out of the public sphere - by motivating popular opinion, not by force of law. If they exist, then under the Constitution, they deserve equal protection of the law.

Let me put it this way. In the list of windmills at which I think we should tilt, homosexual civil unions fall below heterosexual promiscuity in priority. And abiding by the Constitution as written is more important to me as a guide to government action than either.