Replies

The only difference is symbolic. If a 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' has the same rights, benefits, obligations, etc as marriage then it is gay marriage, you're just not using the word 'marriage. ' That's why those who claim to support civil unions while wanting to preserve the institution of marriage in fact have a position that protects the word 'marriage', not the institution or concept of marriage.

But it is the case that a lot of Americans hold this contradictory postion. Look at the polls; almost everyone shows a strong majority opposed to legally recognized gay marriage, however if the question if of civil unions it is much less clear. Recently several polls have shown a majority opposed to legally recognizing civil unions, but others show a plurality in support, or a plurality in opposition. There doesn't seem to be consensus here except that its much closer.

Of course I'm not saying that the symbolism of the word 'marriage' is not important. I think its telling that the far left/gay community is increasingly unwilling to accept civil unions, but instead demand the word marriage as well. They have moved beyond calls for tolerance and acceptance to the point of demanding celebration of their lifestyle. That is largely what this is about. If they were reasonable they would accept the semantic compromise many Americans are comfortable with in substituting civil unions for gay marriage, but they insist on getting it all, and that includes the historical and societal status that goes along with the word 'marriage.'

Though I oppose the legal recognition of any gay union, I am beginning the think the conservatives must be willing to make this a state's rights issues. I have doubts that that an Amendment banning gay marriage will pass, but I think an Amendment that clearly stated that each state can decide for itself whether or not to adopt gay marriages or civil unions, and then whether or not to accept gay marriages or civil unions perfomed in other states, and finally that the judiciary can play no part in the matter would have a better chance of becoming law.

The homosexuals see the "m" word as MONEY!

It has become crystal clear without the "m" word, civil unions will stop at the individual state borders or just not exist at all. Why should they? A cohabitation agreement will do the EXACT SAME JOB.

The FMA turns civil unions to where marriage should have been, in the states. With states citizens do not vote for homosexuals. Remember civil unions will not stand if only allowed for homosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals will also have access to the civil union argument. How about a polygamous civil union?

The word marriage opens the money train to social security and immigration. (5k min. for a visa marriage in South Beach.)

I disagree. I was married in GA, but lived in WI and subsequently MO. My marriage was valid in all these states because each state recognizes the other's marriage laws. If left to each state to decide about gay marriage/civil union, then either of two scenarios must occur. One, every state must recognize every gay marriage regardless of that state's laws (like drivers licenses). In the second scenario, a married couple would need to obtain a marriage license in each state to be recognized as married (like businesses need to do).

I disagree. I was married in GA, but lived in WI and subsequently MO. My marriage was valid in all these states because each state recognizes the other's marriage laws. If left to each state to decide about gay marriage/civil union, then either of two scenarios must occur. One, every state must recognize every gay marriage regardless of that state's laws (like drivers licenses). In the second scenario, a married couple would need to obtain a marriage license in each state to be recognized as married (like businesses need to do). That's why this needs to be decided at a national level. A constitutional amendment would be the best way for that to occur.