Personally, I've always felt that the real problem here is government recognizing marriage at all. Marriage, as the right often states, is "a sacred state." Fine, then the government has no business legislating about it. To save a hassle, include a grandfather clause that all state-recognized marriages prior to a date certain are considered civil unions as well, and that from that date the state only recognizes civil unions, with such regulations as seem appropriate. And marriage becomes a purely religious matter, and if a gay couple can find a religious body that lets them marry (and they surely can) then they can marry as well, but the state isn't involved in it.

While I understand the whole "separate but equal is inherently unequal" argument, I favor this position. When it comes to social issues such as abortion, the far right usually has an all or nothing stance, but real change comes from chipping away at the status quo. If GLBT's get nation wide acceptance as fellow human beings, due the same rights as everyone else, that's a good start. The current generation moves the stick higher, leaving the next generation to pick up the torch for even better equality.

Damn right it's progress, but I still think a constitutional amendment banning ALL state- and church-sanctioned marriages is called for.

You've missed the point. Medved is offering civil unions as a *compromise*. But you propose to accept civil unions as a first step toward same-sex marriage. That's not a compromise, and it won't be acceptable to conservatives, either. A compromise works only if it is accepted by both sides as solving the dispute. To accept a compromise with the intention of overturning it is bad faith.

"Just think, in another 20 years you'll be able to shake their hands in broadlight."

--The Waco Kid; 1974

The word "marriage" has a religious connotation, and therefore, religious people get rankled when they feel like their religion is getting forced into accepting something that they don't believe in (and haven't since pretty much forever).

Honestly, why not call the civil arrangement between gay individuals civil unions and be done with it? If a gay couple wants to get married, go to a church that marries gay folks and get a religious ceremony. Over time, I believe gay couples will be considered married by society at large.

But it's nuts to think that 2-4000 years of religious history and consciousness is going to change in 20 years.

The concept of marriage as a religious state rather than a civil one is an idea whose time has come. It's started bubbling up from all over in the past few months.

Civil unions for all who want them. Marriage, if desired, at the house of worship of your choice.

As Steve says, civil unions for gay couples have stopped being controversial. My state recognizes my marriage as a civil union. My church recognizes it as a marriage. Let's give everyone that same option. If your church won't recognize your union as a marriage, find another church.

Two thoughts:

1. Social security. Does the surviving partner of a civil union qualify for widow's benefits? Because until they do, 'civil union' is not just separate; it's unequal.

2. If we were to take that big step and put the state out of the marriage business, we could be treated to a most delicious irony - a rash of propositions to reclassify non-church marriages between straight people as civil unions. Oh, my. I can't stop giggling at the prospect.

Benen: You really have no clue. If Elton John gets it, the wild leftosphere of anything-goes sensibilities really is off the spectrum of acceptability.

I've always felt that the real problem here is government recognizing marriage at all.

Once a religious thing gets into government and law, it is impossible to find a majority of legislators with the reasoning abilities, moral courage, and belief in Constitution principles to take it back out.

I figure they'll implement civil unions in place of marriage right after they take 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance and right before they remove 'in God we trust' from our money.

Actually think that Elton John got this one right even if Medved appears to agree with it...shouldn't rule out the position...in the spirit of Obama it would seem that the gay community COULD adopt this idea and do the "marriage" thing (as suggested above) in churches that condone it...we have two gay brothers (in-law) and neither has expressed a need or desire to marry (much as our straight son does not)...if it truly is about the LOVE and access to "rights" then figure out a way to live in harmony and NOT push the buttons of the wingnuts for no necessary reason.

Marriage, as the right often states, is "a sacred state."

Marriage has always principally been about property rights. The idea of a "sacred state" is a later and far from universal development, and even where it exists as an idea is largely secondary in substance. The idea that marriage is, either in origin or principally, a religious institution is complete and utter fabrication. It is principally an economic institution that just happens to have been created (like, say, the entire idea of law itself) thousands of years before there was any well-developed (much less implemented) idea that there ought to be a separation between religious institutions and civic institutions.

Consequently, when you start seeing societies which do separate religious from civic institutions, you see both managing institutions that are "called" marriage, which have distinct privileges, benefits, and preconditions and other regulations. Often, of course, people involve themselves in both the "marriage" institution of their civic community and that of their religious community, but they are separate institutions governed by separate authorities.

Saying that marriage is a "sacred state" that the government should not involve itself in but should leave to religion has about as good a rational and historical basis as saying that law is a "sacred dictate" that government should not involve itself in but should leave to religion.

Hmmm - how exactly does a state define a "marriage" for the purpose of excluding gays, anyway?

Example: "Marriage" is a [what?], between a man and a woman . . .

Bear with me on this. I don't see how you can define what marriage is without calling it some kind of partnership. And if you then ban "marriage" between gays, but allow the partnerships, aren't you contradicting yourself?

Marriage is a contract between two people, defined by the vows they exchange. And so is a civil partnership. So what makes the two different? How can you distinguish between them, unless you get into the business of religion, which the state is not permitted to do?

Sounds like circular logic here. Marriage is defined as that which we won't recognize if gays call it a "marriage," but which we will recognize if they call it "civil union." So they can still do a civil union in the church, with all the trimmings, even have it holyized (I'm coining the word for lack of a better one) by the presiding pastor, and it will be fine as long as the certificate says "civil union," and not "marriage." Uh huh. Makes sense to me.

Human beings are just plain nuts.

This isn't progress, it's crap. Medved - who hasn't actually been one of the most vocal antigay conservatives, probably owing to the fact that he knows some, given his creative field of endeavor - is just trying to sell half a loaf. The "separate but equal" rubbish is prrof of just how little actual thought there is to opposing gay marriage: "we'll let you be married, but call it something else..." that's just foolishness. If it's "just kike marriage, well, then, it's marriage, and hair-splitting semantics are just meaningless.

Second, I love and respect Elton for all he's done... but he's from an older generation, one that, as he did, is marked by men who tried to keep their true identities out of the public eye. I have no way of analyzing his relation ship with Furnish, but not being married is his choice., and he has no more claim to deciding for others than Medved, or anyone else, does. As much as anything, his "we should be happy if they just give us civil unions" is a position that's partly about fear - take this, or they might take away the whole thing." Also, not good enough.

The last thing I ever expected was a revival of my rad fag tendencies; but I've gradually cme around to staking gay marriage as the big issue because the fight against it is so foolish - people love each other. They should be able to be married. This isn't hard. And when conservatives have arguments as hoary and tired as those used to justify Virginia's case in Loving vs. Virginia, it means there's just not much there. There isn't a "mioddle ground" here. There's half a loaf, and it might as well be none. Gay people need and deserve the right to be married. And we're not settling for less. Or a fig leaf of verbiage.

cmdicely said it all

"Marriage" may be a "religious" deal, but not all "religious" marriage concepts are recognized by government. Try getting your bigamous relationship approved by the County Clerk; but isn't this approved by Islam, and by Mormon fundamentalists? Try marrying a 3-year old; but isn't this sanctioned in some non "Judeo-Christian" countries? (It does not, however, involved sexual contact, as far as I know.)

Fundamentally, marriage in this country is what the Government says it is. And it derives the rights, privileges and responsibilities that the Government defines and sets forth in laws.

I say it's time to question anyone who asserts the "religious" nature of marriage.

DavidNOE has it right.

When my kid got married in Thailand, he and his bride went to the courthouse, signed the document, and were married in the eyes of the state from the moment it was registered. They then went and had a Buddhist reception for the religious and family aspects. The same process worked in Germany when I was stationed there in the late 60's.

There are a bundle of secular legal rights and obligations that are enforced by the secular courts, and you you have to register with the state to get them. Then there are a separate set of religious rights and obligations that the churches deal with. You have to have a religious ceremony to buy into that system. Of course, if you are Catholic then the Church does not recognize the secular divorce. You have to get the religious one to get the benefits within the church.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the separation of secular and religious marriage systems in Europe goes back to the French Revolution along with the metric system and Napoleonic Law. It is an extremely good idea.

This idea that marriage is a religious set of rights and obligations enforced by the state is simply idiotic.

Okay, this hit on one of my pet peeves.

Every marriage in the United States is a civil union.

Seriously. You do not, in fact, have to have a religious ceremony of any kind in order to get married. All you need is a license from the state you're in. Churches do NOT issue marriage licenses -- only the state does.

I suspect that Elton John doesn't know what he's talking about, because IIRC in England, you first get legally married at the registry office, and then you can go off and have whatever religious ceremony you like. If he and his husband went to the registry office, they're married even if they didn't have a religious ceremony afterwards.

The problem in the US is that we've allowed marriage to be delegated off to churches, which means that people don't understand that the ONLY reason they're married is because the state gave them a license to do so. It has NOTHING to do with any religious ceremony that they put around it. If you can convince your priest to do it, you can have the full hour-and-a-half long Roman Catholic marriage ceremony, but if you don't have that piece of paper from the state and submit it properly, you ain't married. Similarly, you can stand in front of a judge and have a five-minute ceremony without God being mentioned even once and be legally married as long as the paperwork is right.

It drives me nuts that even people on the side of gay marriage have bought into this meme that somehow a legal state that is licensed and administered by THE GOVERNMENT is really a religious belief, and so we have to come up with some kind of workaround in order to get gay couples equally recognized by THE GOVERNMENT.

I'm getting to the point where I think that churches shouldn't be allowed to perform legal marriages anymore. Make everyone go down to the courthouse and get the 5-minute ceremony. Then they can go off and have whatever celebrations they choose.

As The Field Negro said:

They can still have civil unions, why do they have to call it marriage?

I guess, and we can all still drink the same water, what's wrong with separate drinking fountains?

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-hate.html

In Quebec Canada there are no 'legal marriages'. The legal thing, conferring various rights, is a civil union done by government officials (or by a person applying for one-time officiant status, if you want your friend to do the honors). If you want a religious marriage, fine, but it has no legal standing. This is for everyone, gay and straight. Solves the problem, and pulls the rug out from under the religious bigots. (And this in a society that until a couple decades ago was one of the most priest-ridden in the world.)

Prop 8 results don't really matter that much. Basically about 50% voted for and against gay rights. If Prop 8 lost by 1% then the immediate result would be radically different but you still would have had 50% voting against gay rights.

It won't be long before the older generation is replaced by the younger generation that votes, by huge margins, for gay rights.

We have moved far in just a few years.

45 years ago my family was instrumental in integrating the first school system in the country to voluntarily integrate the schools by busing. Now we have a black President. No one could have dreamed this day would come back in 63.

It won't take anywhere near 45 years before gays have full and complete legal rights and obligations.

There are always temporary setbacks but the die has been cast and gay rights are coming no matter what the Republican right wing thinks.

If civil unions came with the same perks that marriage does (tax breaks, next-of-kin status, survivorship benefits that allow asset inheritance without probate, etc., etc.), then Elton might have a point. But in the US, civil partnership doesn't mean that you "get the same equal rights" as you do with marriage. If it were simply about religion, then one might grudgingly respect a bigoted and exclusionary church, but it's really about reserving all of the rights of citizens to the straight majority.

Mnemosyne

Forget the ceremony. All that is necessary for the government to confer the secular legal rights and obligations of marriage is for it to be signed by competent individuals and registered by the state. That was how my son and daughter-in-law were married in Thailand in 1997.

So far as the state is concerned, a marriage is just another legal contract between two individuals which confers state-defined legal rights and obligations. Beyond the process of signing the document there is no ceremony needed.

Ceremonies are for religious organizations and for personal and family memories, nothing else.

Since you
"...happen to think that there's no reason to deny gay couples the right to get married."

Then in the interest of fairness, you also don't have any objection to other combinations getting married, do you? Why should it be just for "couples"? For instance, shouldn't it also be OK for "triples" or "quadruples" to get married?

In Georgia, the State Constitutional Amendment that made same sex marriage illegal in 2004 also voided any civil unions. The State Supreme Court has upheld the law for same-sex unions, but was really vague on the civil unions thing...
see http://www.sovo.com/2006/7-14/news/localnews/gamarriage.cfm
And see Glen Greenwald on something Obama and the Dems (with their top 40 hit "Change!"): strike down Section 3 of teh Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits any secondary benefits or rights to same sex marriage : While same-sex marriage is still obviously controversial, the extension of equal rights to same-sex couples is not. "Civil unions" -- the vehicle for that outcome -- has emerged as an interim majority consensus.

Repealing Section 3 of DOMA -- even if one left Section 2 in place -- would enable the equal granting of federal rights to same-sex couples without having any effect on the definition of "marriage." http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/

What is gained by the word "marriage"?

"Marriage" often implies religious connotations. It also brings to mind a status quo relationship recognized, in general, by the public as a normal function of sociological connection.

It seems to me that gay activists don't want legal equality, by which property is combined, medical decisions may be proxied, and so on. It seems to me that the activist community is going "all in" on a word because of what it symbolizes to them: acceptance in the mainstream, in the subdivision, at the gym.

Because legally, civil unions allow everything that's needed for a state to recognize a couple. So what is it with the word "marriage"? I think Elton John is on to something: if he feels the word is a superfluous addendum to the union he already has, then why fight that battle? He's content.

Right now, a rabbi, pastor, priest or witch doctor can sign one's legal document, if one wishes to have a union recognized by a particular religious body. Thus, one has both a civil union and a recognized relationship by whatever religious leader by which one is mentored.

So where is the problem? As the liberal illuminati tell it, homosexuals are victims of a civil rights travesty.

But there are no ghettos; no separate water fountains; no jobs held aloft, out of reach; no withholding of voting or property rights.

The state is not responsible for meeting the emotional needs of people who feel mistreated and marginalized when, in fact, they are able to work, eat, sleep, and celebrate a meaningful union with a partner just like everyone else. It's not a personal attack: it's simply acknowledging that gays and lesbians aren't special, they're like everyone else - which means they don't have a right to special treatment. Gays and lesbians have the same opportunities for employment and happiness as others do, if they choose to follow them.

If the word marriage has no meaning, then take the right to use it away from Mormons and other conservative religionists to describe their civil unions.

First, I believe Elton John is referring to British law and perhaps he doesn't want to get married in order to keep Mr. Furnish further distanced from his assets.

Second, when Michael the lady doth protest too much Medved opines on things gay, why do the words repressed homosexual always come to mind?

I say it's time to question anyone who asserts the "religious" nature of marriage.

Why bother?

Progressives need to take utilitarian positions, which means that fighting over the ownership of a word when you could be securing equal rights under the law is just plain stupid.

The state should recognize all civil unions between two people in exactly the same way regardless of what the two engaged in that civil union want to call it. If two gay people get married at their progressive church, and some foaming at the mouth people from a different church refuse to say the word "married" when referring to their legal status, who cares? And even if we did care, we couldn't stop them. "Civil union" is an accurate and complete term for the rights granted to the people engaged in such unions. Let's make sure all Americans can get one. What the fuck they want to call it is up to them.

I think I live in a "home." The government and our legal system think I have an address, a property tax parcel, and a mortgage.

Get the rights first, the respect will come later, if at all.

Marriage isn't a right. It's a benefit and a responsibility.

Well down here in Florida it seems we don't think gays have the right even to civil unions. It discriminatory and ridiculous beyond belief.

I have a gay brother who is married to his partner in Massachusetts. I asked him about civil unions along the lines of what DavidNOE wrote above, i.e., that in legal terms all marriages are civil unions, with "marriage" being a private issue.

My brother is okay with it, as long as there is full civil equality. However, I will be surprised if the right wing would actually follow through on it. I think they are not only driven by their anti-gay hatred, but that they are perfectly content to use it as a fundraising tool.

the civil standard for two people, whether they be straight or gay, becoming partners and receiving the benefits and undertaking the responsibilities of such a union should be called a civil union. this would be the legal event, which would result in a license from the appropriate official (city clerk, town clerk, etc.). all those who currently hold marriage licenses would automatically now receive civil union licenses.

now if someone happened to want to have their union "blessed" by the church of their choice, they would be free to do so, and their church could decide which unions they wanted to "bless" and which unions they did not want to "bless". however, this "blessing" would not be required by law, and would have no effect on the legal status of the civil union and the issuance of the license.

sometimes the solutions are just so simple.

btw, elton john does not speak for all of us gay men.

Elton John doesn't speak for me. He has the money to pay a lawyer to take care of all the things that a civil contract called "marriage" would take care of automatically.

If anyone needs me, I'll be under the bus.

The idea that civil unions (but not "marriage") is a consensus position is ridiculous. Most of the marriage bans that have passed in the last few cycles have also banned "relationships substantially similar to marriage" or words to that effect. If this were the consensus, it would be law in at least the bulk of the country.

This isn't France, where all sorts of laws are made regarding the usage, changes, and applications of words. This is the United States, and we speak English; "Marriage" is the term used by governments to describe the union of 2 people that incurs certain rights, benefits, and responsibilities. This applies to such unions regardless of religion, love, race, looks, wealth, nationality, or age. I'd be the first to sign on to a system where these unions (which cause benefits to married people and therefore discriminates against single people, but let's not go there), had nothing to do with government. However, as long as they do, ending the discrimination against gay people only ends when gay people have this opportunity as well, by the same name, and with the same implications. After having applied this construct to people of all (adult) ages, all races, all nationalities, all religions (or no religion), all economic levels, and all purposes, to change the name for same-sex unions is another version of the sign "Jews need not apply." Wake up, Elton.

It's progress, if you call "separate but equal" progress!

Any marrieds out there willing to sue to have their marriage declared an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion?

I'd do it, but I think my wife isn't up for the media circus.

Instant fame to be had....

I don't give a damn what Elton John thinks, for the win! He lost any and all credit after "Little Jeanie"... Anybody who writes a song as bad as that has no weight in socio-politcal discourse, ever!

It is progress where civil unions do provide the same benefits as 'marriage'. But in several states, Ohio included, same sex civil unions are specifically disallowed by the constitutional amendments defining marriage.

There are many gays, of a certain age, who bristle at the mention of marriage, and relegate that institution exclusively to heterosexuals. The problem to many of us is the mixture of state and church, which allows clerics to perform marriages, and essentially annoints marriage as 'sacred'. Roman Catholicism holds it to be a sacrament, for example.

The only interest government should have in domestic living arrangements is to protect the rights of children and survivors in regard to property and money. Nothing else.

What we need to do is to strip all clerics of their status as agents of the state when they perform weddings. All legal unions should be civil first, and religious second, and only if the two people involved care to seek the blessing of a diety. Such an arrangement would level the playing field, end the second-class status of gays, and provide more very needed separation between church and state.

Homophobia is still alive and well, and won't disappear even if civil unions for same sex couples become the law of the land.

Imagine if marriage were not available to atheists on the grounds that historically in most (if not all) cultures weddings have always been religious ceremonies. But not to worry - atheists would have civil unions, which are virtually the same thing.

Would any sane person accept this kind of logic??

Elton John does not speak for the gay community as a whole - THANK GOD! If gays have to accept civil unions, then I propose we add another amendment to the California Constitution (we'll call it Amendment 8a). This amendment will further narrow the definition of marriage to recognize only "1 man and 1 woman" as legally married, and stipulate that defeat of this amendment would mean the removal of amendment 8 as well. THEN lets watch as the Mormons fall all over themselves, not wanting to support 8a because it would set a precedent that would limit their number of wives, but also not wanting to defeat it because it would mean married homos.

So where is the problem? As the liberal illuminati tell it, homosexuals are victims of a civil rights travesty.

But there are no ghettos; no separate water fountains; no jobs held aloft, out of reach; no withholding of voting or property rights.

How about my right to bring my Argentine partner to the US, a right almost always automatically granted to heterosexual married couples? A civil union won't do that. In fact, it would be a red flag to INS to deny him even a tourist visa because of the presumption that he would settle permanently. So yes, there is a ghetto...in my case, it's called the Republic of Argentina because my choice is leaving my partner behind or leaving my country.

And of course, if I die, he won't collect my Social Security spousal benefits. There are hundreds of other rights that go along with marriage which civil unions don't include, take a look at:

http://www.marriageequality.org/

I don't care what they call it, marriage or civil unions or Frumious Bandersnatch, just give me the exact same rights that every heterosexual married person enjoys and I'll be satisfied .

Just_Sayin': "Then in the interest of fairness, you also don't have any objection to other combinations getting married, do you? Why should it be just for "couples"? For instance, shouldn't it also be OK for "triples" or "quadruples" to get married?"

Yeah, I got no problem with that, with the caveat that they don't get more income tax benefits than couples do - as long as the people in the set are all consenting adults with no coercion involved. (I've more than one set of friends who live in "triples" and have for decades; they aren't legally married, but consider themselves such.)

Interesting discussion. To the best of my knowledge, all of Canada (nod to whychwood at 1:01 PM) recognizes gay marriage, and it feels like a long time ago that the papers on the west coast were aflutter with the first gay divorce - which obviously came some time after the marriage.

But it was never my impression that the passionate side of the gay marriage argument had all the force behind it: it was the practical side. When Joe dies, does Ben get his life insurance policy? Is each member of the couple vested with the same rights as all married couples? It is further my impression that there is something lacking in this respect with civil unions. I could be wrong, and I'm not an attorney. But if civil unions do not recognize all the rights of spouses that marriage does, that on its face is sufficient reason not to sign on.

Oh, and one more thing. A lot of the most vociferous protest against gay marriage comes from simpletons who are not only sickened by the idea of gay sex, but convinced that gay people who were married would just screw each other all day and night. For starters, you don't have to be married to do that, for the day or so that you could keep it up. Also, that's what heterosexual couples do when they're first married. It tapers off somewhat after that, I can tell you on pretty good authority, and I'm sure it's the same with gay couples.

As some posters have already stated, the problem isn't who you partner with, but what marriage will become as a legal entity. I don't really enjoy gay culture all that much, and my gay friends have drifted out of my droll middle age, but who or what has sexual contact with whom isn't something that preoccupies me. However, if homosexual partnerships gain the full legal status that heterosexual partnerships do, marriage essentially and eventually becomes meaningless and beyond state regulation except in cases of child welfare. Polygamists will eventually demand the same rights that gay activists now see as the holy grail, and so on. Conservatives may not have much in the way of legal reasoning to insist that traditional marriage remain protected, but they do have a point about relativism. Does the West want a world where any union is sacrosanct? Or becomes no fault upon whim? Can I have my cats legally designated as my children because my disability precluded finding the perfect husband who would take on the primary role of rearing the baby I never had? I happen to love WM as a brand, but I will push back when identity politics is window dressed like a favorite dessert! :)

I got it, I got it. We should have a system where everyone is born married to everyone else, so you have to formally divorce people, not marry them. In other words, reverse the process, and it will all work out better than it is now.

Still working on the details.

Some people are hitting all around the target, suggesting that if the country bows to gay marriage, then anything goes - you could legally marry fifty people at the same time, or your favourite snow shovel, your cat or a bag of frozen peas. What's wrong with just stripping the gender out of it, and allowing it to be a union between two human beings? Two only; age, colour, gender and cultural background not to be factors for consideration. That's not opening the door for polygamy, bestiality or bizarre unions with tools or frozen foods, none of which are ever going to attract anything like the degree of popular public support gay unions now enjoy.

Either that, or endow civil unions/common-law relationships with the same legal rights, responsibilities and entitlements as marriage.

"Medved, who probably considered legally-recognized gay unions outrageous a few years ago. . ."

You don't know too much about Medved.

He has never been anti-gay, and has consistently given good reviews to movies that portray gay relationships seriously and sensitively.

This is a rare uninformed post from Steve.

I think that the bundle of obligations and rights involved in government recognized marriage should be identical regardless of the gender of the two parties. Otherwise the problem is that the religious bigots will redefine the marriage of two same sex individuals to have different rights. That's exactly what's be being done in laws banning same sex marriage in those states with civil marriage.

Everyone should apply for civil marriage for the state benefits and obligations of marriage, and then find a church for the religious version if they are interested. Keep religion out of government enforcement.

Government is mandatory for everyone within a given jurisdiction. Religion is an opt-in system. That idea strengthens both government and religion.

It seems so simple to me. All the objections seem to disappear when you realize that religious marriage and civil marriage are two totally different systems of rights and obligations. It's when the two are intermixed that the problems appear.

People confuse the two and don't recognize that property rights, child obligations and the benefits given by the government to parents together with the right of agency such as to make medical decisions for a partner are all rights conferred by government or obligations enforced by government.

Marriage as a sacrament is a religious concept that does not belong to government in any way.

Marriage as a license to have sex is simply ridiculous. Government can't do much to enforce it (how many cases of underage sex are simply ignored because not a damned thing can be done), and the moral suasion of religions clearly don't work. Ask Sarah Palin about her daughter. Government provides rules to deal with the results of sex between two individuals. Religion doesn't do too much effective in that area.

Let government do what it can - and let the religions operate totally separately. Quit mixing the two systems.

I just returned from a civil union in the uk, and I can assert that the text as read by the magistrate is the exact same for same sex and opposite sex couples, including the fabulous line 'they have chosen to celebrate their love in the highest possible form, with a binding legal contract'. The word marriage was replaced by 'binding legal contract' when the state got out of the marriage business and into the civil union business. You get 'married' in a church, you get civil unioned at the district office. The certificate is the exact same. When Charles and Camilla went down to the Windsor city hall to be 'married' by a magistrate, they would have heard the exact same words as my cousin and his husband heard, signed the same papers, and have the same legal rights and responsibilities under the law. This is why Sir Elton doesn't care about this distinction.

Here are a few embarrasing statistics:

Number of years my sister and her partner have been a couple: 18

Number of years my (now) sister in law has been on the Green card list: 15

Number of days following implementation of the UK Civil Union law that passed before their union: 45

Number of days after that my sister got her residency permit including the right to work: 30

Number of years from their union that she will get her UK passport: 5

And we're the land of the free. Right.

Oops: I shouldn't have been quite so sweeping in the freedoms to marry I suggested above. I should have said that age should not be a consideration PROVIDED both parties have reached legal age for the state/province in which they are marrying. No marrying two-year-olds or anything sick like that.

But there are no ghettos; no separate water fountains; no jobs held aloft, out of reach; no withholding of voting or property rights.

Social Security survivor's benefits aren't property? Pension benefits aren't property? Being able to inherit a house -- you know, property -- without having to pay inheritance tax has nothing to do with property?

I'm trying to figure out if you're completely ignorant of the legal obligations that marriage actually entails or if you know and you're just determined that the homos shouldn't be legally allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital the same way you can visit your spouse.

However, if homosexual partnerships gain the full legal status that heterosexual partnerships do, marriage essentially and eventually becomes meaningless and beyond state regulation except in cases of child welfare.

I don't follow your logic here. Why would extending marriage rights to same-sex couples -- the same rights of inheritance and child custody that opposite-sex couples have -- make marriage meaningless? Is your marriage so weak that if Bob and Steve down the street get to call each other "husband," yours will immediately collapse? And if it does, isn't it a sign that there was something seriously wrong with your marriage if your neighbors' legal status affects it so deeply that you end up getting divorced because Bob and Steve got married?

I don't follow your logic here. Why would extending marriage rights to same-sex couples -- the same rights of inheritance and child custody that opposite-sex couples have -- make marriage meaningless?

What about fundamentalist Mormon groups? If they see marriage so redefined in the US, which it will be soon, no doubt, then there is no reason to persecute polygamy as illegal. Think about it. I concede there is no plausible rationale to not giving same-sex couples equal legal status as straight couples, but by the same token, there is then no plausible rationale to consider polygamy, or even incestuous unions, as criminal, though incestuous couples should agree not to have children.

This shows that a successful strategy in moving public opinion is: If you want to achieve a limited goal, then you must passionately advocate for something much more. The limited goal will eventually seem like just common sense.

That's the danger of moderation. Even if you are perfectly fine with compromise solutions (such as civil unions), if you don't push for more, you'll never even get the compromise.

The issue of gay marriage has temporarily displaced abortion as the most divisive issue in our society. Judging from the published public opinion polls, a significant majority in this country opposes same sex marriages. Many fewer people oppose same sex civil unions and other protections for gay couples which would be comparable to the status of male/female married couples. However, gay activists contend that civil unions - a separate but equal concept - is, in itself, discriminatory in that it denies gay couples the status of being married.

The traditional concept of marriage which has been codified in the legislation of all fifty states is clearly derived from Judeo-Christian doctrine and practices. The question then arises, by the adoption of legislation which codifies religion, are we not fundamentally violating the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state? And, if we were to legalize gay marriages, would we not be establishing laws which invade the practice of religion?

What we have is a problem of semantics. States should be in the business of legislating civil unions and religion should be responsible for marriages. Let's change the laws so that states authorize civil unions and all of the rights and protections which traditionally have gone with marriage will apply to couples civilly united, no matter their gender. The churches, synagogues, and mosques can determine who they will marry. If a couple getting married complies with the laws of civil union (getting a license), the rite of marriage and civil union would be simultaneous. Gay couples can have a civil union and a wedding by joining religions which do not discriminate.

Which raises another question - why not allow more than two people to be joined by civil union?

I didn't claim to have all the answers.

I remain puzzled by the claim that extending the right to marry to same sex couples will somehow harm or undermine the more traditional institution of heterosexual marriage.

An individual marriage is typically as strong, or as weak, as its spouses choose for it to be. If I may be indulged a personal anecdote, I have been widowed now for two and a half years. I would like to marry again.

I have accordingly given a lot of thought as to what kind of woman will be an appropriate partner in marriage. If her commitment to marriage is so tenuous that the gender of the spouses a block away, or the marital status of the same sex couple across the street, can undermine that commitment, I know that she is not a good candidate for marriage.

According to the view that same sex marriage will harm or undermine opposite sex marriage, what am I missing here? Please enlighten me.