Replies

"My primary impression is that you have a particularly traditional moral outlook. "

Ah, but throughout this thread I have stated nothing nor expressed anything that would force such a conclusion. Read carefully.

"And that is fair enough from a personal perspective. But my argument is that by and large it is the Gov's job to view both objectively and morally equivelent. "

Since when is MORAL EGALITARIANISM government's job? On the contrary, the last thing you want is a Government that acts to level mores. Rather we should want Government to *support* moral standards.

"If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term.
(Stopping short of family issues were children are concerned, because that is a whole other can of worms - I realise that that would inevitably be the next battle, but lets deal with each separately on their own merits) Could you be in favor of it?"

You missed the key element: Is this a 'solution' enforced by imperial Judges or enacted by the people?
I have already stated I would have 1/10th the problem if the law is actually done by the legislatures. I believe the ONLY solution that is appropriate is for different states - through their legislatures - to take their own approach on this concept of gay 'unions' piecemeal and to leave marriage itself alone.

Could you favor *that*?

Your 'vermont' solution is one approach, another is simply this: Keep things as they were. A compromise would be something in between. Such details are less an issue for me than whether the people can get control of their culture back from an unelected robed elite.

Obviously the demonization of the ACLU is a personal interest of yours, and I haven't spent enough time on the subject to argue point by point. I mentioned before that I'd probably question your sources on the subject sure enough I find ones you mentioned downright laughable.

But to continue to argue about the ACLU as an organization is to stray from the subject at hand. To me, the ACLU is overly picky and can be quite annoying at times, but basically they do more good then harm. I don't for a moment expect you to ever agree with me.

Back to the core of the subject:

"You missed the key element: Is this a 'solution' enforced by imperial Judges or enacted by the people?
I have already stated I would have 1/10th the problem if the law is actually done by the legislatures."

I find this curious as the judges went out of their way NOT to decree a solution. Basically, they said to the legislature: "Having heard the arguments, we find there is a problem here as regards these laws and our constitution that you need to fix. Here you go!"

These are your imperial judges? Your robed elite?
Clearly you are not happy that they found a problem. You obviously don't think there is a problem given your suggestion to "Keep things as they were." But it looks like a majority of the judges found one in terms of how long term gay couples are treated in civil law and they handed it over to the legislature to fix probably figuring that it will respond with some type of compromise as you mentioned.

Short if ignoring an element of injustice they have identified, I don't understand what you want them to do?

"I believe the ONLY solution that is appropriate is for different states - through their legislatures - to take their own approach on this concept of gay 'unions' piecemeal and to leave marriage itself alone."

Could you favor *that*?

I would love for every state high court in the country to rule as they did and to inform their legislatures fix the problem. And if every state leg, by honoring that ruling, threw out the word "marriage but came up with a "civil union" designation that gave gay couples the ability to commit themselves to one another in some official capacity and have all the rights and privileges of married couples, I would be ecstatic!

I have long wished that the gay community could leave the semantics of "Marriage" aside and just focus on getting their rights as long term couples. Just to keep people from going nuts on the whole marriage idea as so many people in this forum have done.

Personally don't care if they are sanctioned as "married" or not as I still find the idea that gay marriage harms or denigrates my, or anyone else’s marriage in anyway shape or form, completely absurd.