[longtermmemmory]

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.)

[Aetius]

Of course you're right that this is about more than I mentioned. I'm glad you brought up the immigration aspect, as I believe any immigration reform should make it clear (or reaffirm) that as far as family reunification is concerned, that only a male husband of a female citizen or permanent legal resident, or the female wife of a male citizen or PLR, can be sponsored as a spouse.

But I still maintain that this push is at least in part due to a desire by the farleft/gay lobby to shove their lifestyle down the throats of Americans by having society celebrate it the same way we do marriages. Its a big F You to the majority opposed to gay marriage, and a big extended middle finger to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which much of Western Civilization has been built. For many on the left this defeat of traditional values would be as valuable as all the economic and legal issues involved.