[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.

[ArGee]

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.

I agree with you on what the bigger cause is, but in untying a knot, you always go in the opposite order of the way it was tied.

Shalom.

[little jeremiah]

I would choose the same way to keep homosexuality out of the public sphere - by motivating popular opinion, not by force of law.

The problem with this argument is this:

The only reason homosexuality is accepted and "celebrated" today (Gay Pride parades down city streets replete with nudity, simulate and/or real humping, etc, gay-positive sex-ed in schools, gay friendly clubs in schools, and more too innumerable to get into here) is SOLELY because courts have shoved this down our collective throats. In other words, court mandate has pretty much gotten us where we are today. Popular opinion has followed the courts' rulings.