i said the same thing to john the other night.  no joke.

but it’ll never happen.  11 states passed laws to “protect” their marriages.  what a joke.

it’d be funny then.  i’d be married and you wouldn’t ;) of course, there are a shitload of people out there who STILL wouldn’t consider my marriage valid, including the same religion that married us.  people sometimes forget that there are equally as psychotic religious right jews ;)

also, it doesn’t fix the sentiment that too many (i.e., more than 0) states will STILL say “joining licenses are for a man and a woman” and you’re still back where you started.

ohio banned civil unions this time around.

I think the only hang up is that marriage implies a religious connotation.  The solution?  Separation of church and state.  Remove all recognition of marriage as an institution by the government.  In its place substitute the civil union, or a civil partnership.  Married couples can apply as a union or partnership, but it need not be inferred.  The partnership can be used to cover a family unit, should constitute commitment that must be mutually dissolved, and there should be a limit to the number of partnerships a person can have. 

I agree that people should have the right to take care of their loved ones.  There should not be a roadblock in the way of that endeavor.  But I also feel that the word marriage means something far deeper than the ability to take care of your loved ones.  It’s a bond that is sanctified in the eyes of God and I fully understand why someone would not want to be forced to accept a desecration of that sanctity.  There should be a difference between a bond with government, and a bond with God.  Your pact with God, is just between you and God, and no one should get in the way of that either.  No matter which way the Government meddles with marriage, (for or against) someone’s ideals are being blocked needlessly.

Uhh…

hmm.  I specifically talked about removing that word and privatizing it.  So the bond between you and your god would not be affected in any way whatsoever.

And jody, I have something I left out by accident to answer your point.

I’m glad to see that you’ve decided to write this. It restores my faith that there are going to be people in the Republican Party who are willing to fight against the hijacking of your people who are banning gay marriage not because of the definition, but because they want to throw a roadblock in the way of gay rights (or equal rights). You have a long battle ahead of you as your party decides what is the soul of the party. Is it fiscal conservatives with libertarian leanings, or is it the Judge Moores of this country. Best of luck to you for all of our sakes.

Yeah, I know.  I was just agreeing with you in a verbose way.

I take the libertarian view of it.  The government should not be involved in marriage at all.  Any property rights, custody rights, medical decision rights, or anything other rights can and should be left to private contracts between the two parties.  I see no reason for state law and judicial whim to decide the terms of my union.

So there’s my non-bigoted disagreement.  I don’t oppose gay marriage; I oppose ALL marriage.  Sort of.

Anyone desiring a traditional religious wedding ceremony can certainly still have one.  Instead of the priest/preacher/rabbi signing your wedding license, he signs your contract as a witness.  The ceremony proceeds as it always has.

This is essentially the same as making a separate door into an equal instutition (call it a civil union, give it precisely the same rights).  Anyway, I support this.

And actually, call me a bigot, but I really don’t want gay unions called marriage.  They can have all the same rights under a different name though.

Anyway, somehow getting Republicans to support the idea is the only way it’ll ever be approved.

The problem is any contract will always get the law involved at some point.

Gay marriage doesn’t bother me any. Marriage itself has been put through the wringer by enough straight people as it is. What’s the worst that could really happen? No one has persuaded me, yet, that this will destroy life as we know it. But I do understand the general discomfort on the part of most Americans.

As I see it, the issue is the legal stuff. Ain’t no law telling anyone who to love or live with, and relatively few telling them who to boink. And there’s no reason two guys or gals (or three, or seven) can’t stand up before their friends and declare their undying devotion for one another. Nothing stopping that now, nothing ever will so far as I can see.

And, so far as equal rights go, gays and straights do have them here - we have no right to marry the person we love. We just have the right to marry one, not-closely related person, of the opposite sex and appropriate age. Love doesn’t factor into it.

So now we get to the property stuff, the stuff which LEAST mattered to me when I got hitched. Nonetheless it does make things easier, particularly when it comes to death and inheritance. Most people agree if Gary wants to leave all his stuff to Steve, he should. So the whole civil union thing shouldn’t be as big an issue. And I don’t think it is. I bet most states would get them through with little problem.

Here is the problem with renaming the marriage certificate - it absolutely will not satisfy the majority of people. These are people who believe firmly that heterosexual marriage deserves a special place, special recognition in our society. To have the government cease to recognize legal marriage would be as much an affront to them as having them recognize gay marriage. Maybe even moreso.

In the end, marriage, as a cultural institution, isn’t a private affair, no matter what anyone says. Its a community thing. Always has been - you stand up, take your vows before the community, and they bear witness and give blessing. Gays should have taken this case to the people, not the courts. Opposition to gay marriage was somethinglike 90% 10 years ago, now its down around 65-75%. Pushing this in the courts has forced opponents to dig in their heels, and likely cost them some allies (at least in the short term). They should have simply pressed for civil unions, and, when people didn’t see fire fall from the sky, I think they would have been more open to allowing marriage. It would have taken 10, 20 more years, butif this is REALLY what they’ve bitched about - being able to commit to the person they love- there’s nothing stopping them anyway.

I can’t imagine an argument against this plan that doesn’t come from bigotry.

Nice, if you disagree then you are a bigot?  I believe that the institution of marriage has been complete destroyed.  I prefer the Government to gets out of the marriage business all together.  We should all be in Civil Unions, or common law “what-evers.”

Leave Religion to Religion.

Here’s your non bigoted argument:  This is a civil rights issue, not a religious one; seperate but equal has never worked before, and it won’t work now. People demanding a government enforced definiton of marriage on religious grounds fail to realize that that is equivalent to demanding the government deny women the right to vote based on gender, for religious grounds.

Misterd Saying that gays and straights have the same rights now is analogous to saying that pre-sufferege women had the same rights as pre-sufferege men because any American could vote as long as they were of the appropriate age, citizenship, and gender, or that pre-integration blacks had the same rights as pre-integration whites because any one could ride a public bus. 

Trying seperate but equal is telling homosexuals that they are not worthy of marriage, because they are gay.  What is the criteria?  Fangbeer, if a person’s bond with God is theirs alone, how would the government allowing gays to marry interfere with that bond?  Would it cheapen your marriage somehow? Why is same sex marriage a desecration of marriage?  Who gets to judge? Isn’t God supposed to, at the reckoning?  Who gets left out in the cold?  If marriage is really a sacrement, why would you deny anyone divine providence, gay or not?

Davidst, you’re a bigot.  Why should you be allowed to have something gays aren’t?  Should you be allowed to have a racially segregated restaurant, or exclude women from employment at your place of business?  I suppose Jews shouldn’t be allowed to buy Christmas trees for secular celebrations, and noone but blacks should be allowed time off for Dr. Martin Luther King’s Birthday.  Is my attitude unreasonable?  If you think so, believe me, I feel the same about yours.

Not allowing homosexuals the rights, protections, benifits and obligations of a marriage simply beacause they are gay is hypocrisy of the lowest stripe from a country that espouses human rights and civil liberties throughout the world.

Sorry, I can’t call it a joining license. I’ll stick with calling them civil unions in this case.

I agree that I don’t support the notion of gay marriage since the term marriage has religious connotations for me.

I think I could get behind the idea of civil unions on one main (there are others) condition: That whatever law that drafts this protects churches from lawsuits by gay couples alleging discrimination for not marrying them.

I’m all for the civil union.  After all for year (and may still be in effect) there is the commonlaw marriage. It’s a civil union (of sorts).

It solves the problem, for non-bigots. It allows those that wish unions to have them, and be entitled to the benefits involved. 

I, personally, wish to be married in a church. It’s my right and my choice. There are churchs out there that will recognize a gay marriage and that is wonderful. It offers that option.

But in order for that to mean anything the right to civil union is a must.

It hurts no one. It threatens no one.

Great Idea! Call it a civil union, joining license or whatever, just not marriage. Keep marriage in the church, just like other church traditions: like baptism and confirmation. It would be absurd if we started relating citizenship to baptism, or a right to vote to confirmation. Keep the separation of church and state and you will not have these problems. When the goverment gets involved with marriage it starts stepping on people’s rights, and now if you look at it from a distance, both sides are trying to impose and legislate their morality on the other: that’s not going to solve any problems. Davidst is not a bigot. To have morals, and to wish to keep your moral system separte from the state is not bigotry. To call Davidst a bigot, even though he obvously supports an equality among straight and homosexual unions in the eyes of the state, is to somehow imply your personal moral code is superior to others. If the church wants to exclude, or include for that matter, gays from marriage, it should be their right based on their members’ moral beliefs. Why would a gay person push for more than equality in the eyes of the state? Why would they want to join an organization that considers them immoral, or even in some extreme cases “evil”? Back to a loose analogy to wrap things up. If for some odd reason our goverment called citizenship baptism, and a bunch of devil worshipers wanted to become “baptized” yet continue their practice, it would probably offend the Chrisitians who consider this evil, and the devil worshipers who would be excluded. Forntunately we have separation here, and we should with marriage as well. No one has a problem with Christian churches excluding practicing devil worhsipers from membership as long as the state gives them equal rights. And no one should care if the chruch excludes gays from marraige, as long as the state gives them equal rights.

first, tammi, just FYI, common law marriage is a state by state creature.  for example, you can live your entire life as husband and wife, but unless you have the state license in NY, you are not married, common law or statutorily.  i do believe, however, that if you’re considered to be common law married in PA (i think PA is a common law marriage state), i’m pretty sure NY will recognize it.  you just can’t obtain that status in NY.

i assume that when people say “give marriage to the church,” what people are actually saying is “give marriage to religious entities.”

What if your objection to gay marriage has nothing to do with the church or religion? 

I for one have no problem with gays (have several relatives that are gay), but have a huge problem with society redefining and thus leaving open ended an institution - a union of a man and a woman to raise children - that has been it’s foundation without analyzing and understanding the consequences.

When the stigma associated with single parenthood - especially where the young are concerned - was removed and government in an effort to appear benevolent started subsidizing it, it exploded and created all manner of problems. I don’t think anyone here will argue effectively that this deviation from the family norm has not had drastic consequences on society. Forty years ago the stability of black families allowed them to rise out of poverty and raise their standard of living at a rate that was unmatched.  Yet today in the black community which has been the hardest hit by illegitimacy, the destruction of the black family has created a never ending cycle of poverty, crime, and a myriad of other issues. We try like hell to treat the symptoms, but the underlying problem will never be addressed because it’s not politically correct anymore.

The same can be said about divorce and the “me” generation.  The damage on society from this is quite apparent, but because it is politically incorrect to address or talk about it, it’s allowed to get worse.  Kids now grow up with single parents or grandparents while the other parent is treated as a pariah (sometimes justly).  In other cases divorced parent form new unions creating even more chaos for the children. There are consequences to this destabilization of the basic unit of society. And the fruits of those unstable building blocks of society, now in the majority and growing bigger, will eventually themselves propagate and increase the dysfunction.  Arguing otherwise is futile the proof lies in front of every one of us.

As I see it, once we open the door to redefine the basic family union, we will just create more problems.  And where will it stop?  Why would pedophilia or incest be wrong if both participants can claim they are in love?  Sure you can say one is a minor when it comes to pedophilia, and incest is just wrong, but I thought we where redefining the definition of marriage because we where discriminating against people that where in love.  What about the scenario where two feminists, both with children from different men, use this new union as a vehicle to keep the fathers away from their children while collecting child support from both?

My point is that not everyone that has an issue with gay marriage or unions does so because they hate gays or their religion tells them it’s wrong.  Some of us have actually seen what the damage to society is when the building blocks – the family union – gets redefined, and what we are now talking about is a further and greater redefinition of said building block.  Of course to the left this might be a win-win seeing they would love to dissolve family all together and have government raise everyone.

You know what’s bugging me?

Not very many of you are reading my words.  You’re just making your own arguments for or against.

I did not advocate a seperate but equal status.  I avocated an equal status for all.

I’m pretty disappointed in people today, I tell you what.

Alex, your arguments crept into the realm of ridiculousness.  Pedophelia?  What the fuck does that have to do with two committed ADULT people who want rights of survivorship and health decisions?  I’m sorry but that’s just...ridiculous.  I find it absolutely deplorable to try to associate the two.  That’s a Michael Moore trick.

That whatever law that drafts this protects churches from lawsuits by gay couples alleging discrimination for not marrying them.

I would agree to this.  It’s important to protect the religious institutions from being forced to do something that is against the religion.

Alex, your arguments crept into the realm of ridiculousness.  Pedophelia?  What the fuck does that have to do with two committed ADULT people who want rights of survivorship and health decisions?

Jim you missed my point totally buddy.  My point is very simple: Why are we willing to change the basic familial unit to include one group but deny it to others?

I’m sorry but that’s just...ridiculous.  I find it absolutely deplorable to try to associate the two.  That’s a Michael Moore trick.

I absolutely did not try to associate the two.  I tried to point out that once you open the door everyone might want to get in.  I ask again.  Why can we say OK we will change the definition of the familial unit - forget marriage - to include some previously excluded group but not another?  If you would prefer replace pedophilia with polygamy or bigamy and answer my question.

Jim,

Let me also point out that the basic fallacy I see with your argument lies in the committed part.  As I mentioned divorce is too easy as is, and even heterosexuals seem to bungle it up too often.  All this does is create even more opportunity for divorce.  The only people that profit from this are lawyers (hi Jo-Jo! And sorry for the lawyer joke in such a serious thread).  Refusing to see this or redirecting us to only answer the based on your postulations is like asking someone; “Please answer yes or no.  Do you still beat your wife?”

And I just don’t trust that that once granted, it would end with rights of survivorship and health decisions as you postulate.  My uncle who’s gay has made it very clear to me: he is not interested in marrying anyone and when dead gives a rat’s ass what happens to his assets (yes he is a very cynical man). To him this debate is about removing the stigma of homosexuality by raising to an equal level with heterosexuality.  This mentality will just not stop at what you propose but only use it to get what they want. You as a gun advocate know the argument of incerementalism with the final goal of banning all guns.

Alex, that’s not going to fly.  That’s the same type of logic gun grabbers use against us.  “Well, what if someone *did* use a $6,000 gun with 5 dollar bullets to rob a bank?” Yeah...uhh...not gonna happen and we know it.

We’re talking about two adults.  Period.  Always have been, always will be.  Not 6, not 34, not 3.  Two.  Adults.  Coming up with nightmare scenarios about what might be is not going to make gay people disappear.  We have no choice, as a practical matter, but to address the issue.  Forget any other considerations: As a practical matter, WE HAVE NO CHOICE.

They aren’t going away.  And they have rights.  Those rights should be equal, and if we won’t give them marriage, then we should remove marriage from the purview of the government.

And what, exactly, is wrong with polygamy/bigamy? I can understand why some businesses would have a problem with it, since it would mean more people to cover, but frankly, that’s no different than a monogamous couple deciding to have a whole ton of kids. If businesses are that worried, they can have a cutoff point, say “no coverage after # of people”. I’m sure if businesses had it their way, they’d only allow single people and include it in your contract you could never date and had to get neutered, so… y’know.
Honestly, I really see no reasons, again, other than religious to deny THOSE people their rights either.
Pedophilia is a different matter from these things, and it is ridiculous to try and compare them. You’re attempting to compare matters between consenting adults, however many there may be, and someone incapable of determining consent on their own. (Why this magical age when they can suddenly decide is set distinctly eighteen is a much more complex social matter that I don’t think laws and society are really set up to handle in this day and age.)
A relationship between three thirty-year-olds, and a relationship between a thirty-year-old and a ten-year old are simply not the same thing, other than grouping it together under the very broad standing of “it’s not the norm”.

BTW…

Nice, if you disagree then you are a bigot?

Note I never said that.  I outlined a plan that protects marriage as an institution of the church (meaning religion at large, but I’m using that word from now on for brevity’s sake) while allowing non-religious couples, regardless of sex, to be legally joined for the purposes of rights commonly associated with said joining.

I can’t imagine abyone opposing two gay people wanting to leave their estates to one another for any reason other than bigotry.

Can you?  How does a gay couple’s survivorshop rights affect *yours*?  Why would you want to prevent that?  Any legitimate reason other than “Gays are bad?”

Jim, your idea is very reasonable and sane. It’s not the first time I’ve heard that, but I support it completely. However, as you’ve seen, the electorate have spoken, and their preference is by no means for things reasonable and sane. This point is completely moot. The best we can hope for it that Bush doesn’t appoint some justices who will allow the states to re-declare homosexuality illegal. Small steps, after one major step backward.

Coming up with nightmare scenarios about what might be is not going to make gay people disappear.

Why do you assume I want gay people to disappear?  They are PEOPLE just like you and me Jim. I have already mentioned I have family members that are gay and I don’t love them any less for that.  Just because I pointed out I felt this issue as currently handled had problems associated with it doesn’t mean I want to wipe out gay people. Sheesh!

We have no choice, as a practical matter, but to address the issue.  Forget any other considerations: As a practical matter, WE HAVE NO CHOICE.

I thought that was what we where doing by discussing this.  But I don’t think we are addressing it if we only look at very specific examples and ignore the potential problems that will come from it. You just strike me as way smarter than that.

I sure wish this topic had an easy, clear solution, but then again if that was the case it would not be such a big problem and already resolved.

They aren’t going away.  And they have rights.  Those rights should be equal, and if we won’t give them marriage, then we should remove marriage from the purview of the government.

Agreed they will not go away.  Agreed they have rights.  Where we differ is that I see way too many negative consequences (and religious ones don’t factor here for me in case you are wondering) coming from any shift that realigns the underlying familial blocks that we are neither addressing nor discussing in our rush to deal with the heavy emotional aspect of this. And that’s bad.  Let’s put it this way: if we rush into doing this and it causes chaos whom will suffer and get blamed?  Even worse.  Based on how it’s taboo to say easy divorce and illegitimacy have undermined society for fear of being labeled by the political correctness police, I fear a haphazard and forced solution will prevent us from forever bridging our difference.  Look at what Roe vs. Wade has done to the country because judges decided to impose their morality on the public.

That was my only problem with Gay-Marriage from the get go. All I asked was to just change the term “Marriage” to ANYTHING else, just not marriage. And i’d have no problem whatsoever, exact same rights and everything, hell I dont care if they want more, just change the name. I’ve been saying that forever and its nice to see JimK bring up the idea. I’m From North Dakota and we just passed the amendment to ban it (as you know) but we were one of the few to ban not only gay-marriage but all civil-unions. A bit extreme if I do say so myself :-|

I can’t imagine an argument against this plan that doesn’t come from bigotry.

That is your money quote. Maybe I am just reading that wrong, but it seems to me if you don’t agree with “The Plan” then you a bigot. 

Now I have two marriage license one from the church and on from the state.  I really felt like I didn’t need either.  I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me I am married.  I would agree with civil unions for I really don’t care.  Also I really don’t see why you can’t marry more than one person.  Both adults right?

Hello all, There seem to be two religious beliefs out there; darwinsm and God fearing folk.  yes, Darwinsm is a religion think about it.  Those God fearing folk are against gays, cause of scripture and all.  The “Evolve” people MUST understand that in order TO evolve and reporduce there has to be reporduction so to pass the “genes” you would have to REPRODUCE; pass them/reporduce; as a species it would be extinctive not to.
I agree that that IS their choice, I am only pointing to it’s non-productive nature.

Jim,

I truly think you are spot on.  Perhaps a better term for the ‘marriage license’ would be a ‘couple’s license’.  Then you are making it clear that it is 2 people.  I think this would help to deter the often-used polygmy argument.

Additionally, I don’t agree with those who argue that the voters have spoken based on the election results.  Unless I’m reading the ballots incorrectly, 8 states lumped gay marriage AND civil union together on the ballot.  For many ‘gay marriage’ is a litmus test.  I spoke to my father about this.  He’s a lifelong Republican Catholic.  He supports your ideas about separating church and state.  He would vote to allow the ‘civil union’, he just doesn’t want the word ‘marriage’ re-defined.  But if he lived in one of those 8 states it would not surprise me if he had voted for the ban, based solely on the ‘gay marriage’.

I’m not following the argument about divorce rates posted by someone else.  We shouldn’t let gays get the legal rights because heterosexuals get lots of divorces?  I’m lost on that one.  Gays aren’t responsible for the divorce rate of heterosexuals, but we should punish them because of it?  Same deal with polygmy.  I don’t understand why this gets brought up in the context of gays.  Why would this be any more likely to occur based soley on allowing 2 gay people civil rights?  People who support the civil rights of two people who are ‘joined in some politically correct way’, do not by default support the joining of an adult with a goat.  That’s ridiculous and I don’t need to take a Rasmussen or Zogby poll to know that people who support gay rights are against this.

Since we’ve been taken to task by JimK for going astray,let me reiterate the problem with this plan:

Most people simply do not wish to see gay marriage placed on equal footing with traditional marriage in the eyes of the government. It does not matter whether you elevate gay marriage, or knock out traditional marriage - the effect is the same and will remain equally unpalatable to the general public at this time.

Reply to johnnydickhead: I made this same basic post the last time this came up in a gay marriage thread. Darwinism doesn’t apply universally in human society. Gay men and women have been having children for centuries. Until very recently, being openly homosexual was not an OK thing to do. You had a wife and family for show, then had sex with who you wanted to on the side. Or, you believed your society or your religion, forced yourself into a “normal” relationship, and denied your sexuality. For your theory to work, gay people would have had to been able to live as they wanted throughout human history; this is simply not the case.

A second (and equally valid) rebuttal, just for fun: Your theory seems to assume that sexual preference is a two-state switch, that you’re either attracted only to the opposite sex or only to the same sex. Based on experience, we know this is not the case. Sexuality is probably a continuous line between completely heterosexual and completely homosexual. Depending on what you inherit from your parents, you can end up anywhere on that spectrum.

That’s the nature side of the argument. I’m sure the nurture side is just as influential and just as complex, but Darwinism does not provide a solid argument against homosexuality being a genetic trait.

If we get government out of the marriage business and states still pass laws discriminating against civil unions between two adults, then I believe it will be bigotry, plain and simple.  And that can and should be challenged in the courts.

jim, you and i believe it’s bigotry, but like i mentioned previously (or somewhere else?) sexual orientation is not a protected class as is religion, gender, etc.

hurdle #1 would be to get the courts to agree that homosexuals belong to a protective class.

i’m pretty much willing to be oooooodles of cash that won’t happen anytime soon.

Why is it seperation of church and state arguments always come up whenever the church tries to impose it’s will on others and the government tells them it can’t? Most especially when Christianity tries to exert it’s influence as the De Facto state religion of the country? Both sides start loudly decrying why the seperation of church and state supports their own position.  Delixir, I called Davidst a bigot because he told me to.  If a person wants something set aside for themself and denied from someone else because they are different, that person is a bigot.  That’s the definition of the word.  Don’t make the common mistake of confusing beliefs and morals, either.  My personal VALUES and BELIEFS (which by the way, include the belief that ALL men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights) isn’t superior to anyone else’s, and I never said it was.  I did say that the moral code of THIS COUNTRY espouses equality for everyone, regardless of their personal origins, creeds, religions.  You say to keep marriage within the church; my assertion remains that the concept of marriage did not originate with the church, and indeed is already as much outside the church as in it.  Justices of the peace are civil officials, ships captains are civil or military officials, just to name a few examples who have the ability to marry a couple.  I’m not sure I follow your analogies; they don’t make any sense to me.  I didn’t say, and I don’t think anyone else did either, that churches should be forced to allow homosexuals into their congregations if they don’t want to, or even that the churches had to MARRY homosexuals if they don’t want to.  Besides, don’t you realize that there are churches that already HAVE openly homosexual members in their congregations?  Don’t you realize that there are churches with openly gay CLERGY?  I am trying to say that I don’t think the religions (ANY religions, not just the Judeo-Christian religions) should be allowed to co-opt the concept of marriage, wrap it in mystical value, and then deny it to other people simply because those people do not fit a particular church’s idea of right and wrong.  If you are going to insist on seperation of church and state, then why should the state enforce the definition of marriage as the joining of a man and a woman with a constitutional amendment? I’m not advocating giving homosexuals a “special” or “super-equal” right to get married.  I am advocating that the government acknowledge that homosexuals are human beings, and that homosexual citizens of this country are entitled to ALL of the rights afforded every other citizen.  Creating a “seperate but equal” term for homosexual marriage isn’t the same thing; simply because it is created out of thin air to mollify people, the Civil Union or joining or whatever will never be equal to a marriage.

Jim, I beg to differ, your plan DOES create a “seperate but equal” issue, simply because of the whole “Let religion have it” idea.  A science fiction author spoke about a phenomenon called “Rupture”; it occurs when two or more people are talking away, yakety yak, thinking that they are having a discussion, and suddenly they realize that they are, in fact, talking about two different things.  That’s what’s going on in this issue.

The typical opponent of gay marriage has misgivings about letting gays call their marriages “marriage”, for whatever reason.  They somehow think that it is a degradation of the concept of marriage, or it’s against god’s law, or whatever.  Many try to blame their misgivings on popular opinion, or what have you.  The basis of these misgivings is the cultural belief that gays are WRONG.  Even those who claim “I have nothing against gays, but...” feel deep down in their heart of hearts, or perhaps even not so deep, that gays are WRONG, or evil, or sinners, or crazy, but not equal.  They’ll accept a seperate class of relationship, all legal and everything, as long as they get to keep the marriage.
The typical supporter of gay marriage feels that the lives of homosexuals are being controlled by the wills of people who refuse to even listen to them on the basis of religious or cultural programming, and who seek to maintain a status quo that abhors them.  Deep down in their heart of hearts, or even not so deep, they believe that they are just as deserving of the respect and acceptance of their communities and nation as anyone else.  By creating a seperate class of marriage and giving it all the same rights and protections as the “traditional” (God I hate that word… look, just because something has been done for a really long time, doesn’t means it’s the only way, or the right way, or even A right way) marriage is the same thing as creating a SECOND class of marriage.  and they are tired of second class treatment…
I think it was Alex that said earlier that “those people” want to put their relationships on a coequal footing with heterosexual relationships. Doi… that’s EXACTLY what they want.  To be treated like everyone else.

Alex, I will try to answer your points, from my point of view, since I am the one that’s been proclaiming a civil v.s. religious schism in this particular discussion, and why that conflicts with Jims plan.
First of all, we as a society, meaning the United States of America, have the good fortune to live in a country that since it’s inception has constantly redesigned the institutions at it’s foundations.  Some of those institutions are slavery, conscription, imperialism, genocide, and religious persecution.  Trust me when I say that for each of those institutions had their adherents, indeed, they still do.  I think that because you have envisioned a plethora of undesirable outcomes, they are likely, and perhaps you feel that none of the adherents of allowing gays to call their marriages “marriages” have the foresight to see the same problems.
It’s not like we don’t live in the same world you do, man.  The consequences have been examined down to micron.  It’s just that those of us who do believe it’s the right thing to do believe that the good is going to outweigh the bad.
I don’t know where you live, but the stigma associated with single parenthood is still firmly attached everywhere I’ve ever been.  As far as it goes, it’s not like bastardy is some thing that is brand new, it’s simply that more people are willing to put up with the stigma in order to try to fulfill their responsibilities to their children.  It’s the stigma that you say is gone that has more and more of them failing.
As for divorce, well, what’s the answer?  Abolish divorce, and force people to live together when they hate each other?  Leave battered spouses at the mercy of their abusers?  Force children who may now be more likely to get divorced to become batterers instead, since they were trapped in the house with their hateful parents?  We may have traded one set of problems for another, so instead we should go back to the days when people suffered through decades of hell in loveless marriages and tortured their kids out of spite?  Talk about not PC… In the good old days, I could not only kick my wife’s ass whenever I felt she needed it, I was EXPECTED to.  Again, this stuff ain’t brand new…

I just say all of this to show that our society is constantly evolving, and that like it or not, there is good and bad in every change.  Decrying the dissolution of the family unit is moot to this discussion, because of two factors: a)You have assumed and asserted that the basic family unit is one man, one woman, and a bunch of little rugrats born of that pair scampering around the yard, and I will not stipulate that is so.  What of adoptive parents?  What of the Polygomous families? (they’re still out there… they didn’t go away just because the government told them they couldn’t legally do it anymore...) How about the polyandrous families among the Native American tribes?
b)The Homosexuals that want to be married, and I believe this is what Jim was trying to say, feel they ARE family units, and they want to be recognized as such.  Hell, a lot of these people HAVE kids, and they want to pass along the value of family TO them, by getting MARRIED to the person they love.  Gee, if more people considered MARRYING the person they loved, that might get a jump on that single parent thing, huh?