Considering the numbers Gay Marriage seems a long shot at best. Its use as a political weapon for the right however is still imminent.
One can argue all day long that the term "marriage" should be free for anyone to use but obviously some people see it as a sign of the end times for America.
So would the Democrats and even Moderates from the right be smart to start a push for the defining of the boundaries and rights of a Civil Unions. Legal representation, regards to the illness and loss of one's partner, etc. (How many states already have this?)

Would you support the officially recognized/sanctioned development of Civil unions that are recognized in all of the States?

Since the argument is against the Term marriage, what objections would you have against Civil Unions and can they be supported Constitutionally?

Would this defang the drive for a Constitutional Amendment to "protect" marriage. By passing such legislation, whether at the state or federal level, would the neccesity of an Amendment be supportable?
If yes, gauge the enthusiasm of the publics response to the call.

Would you support the officially recognized/sanctioned development of Civil unions that are recognized in all of the States?

Yes, and I do not see why any politician, Demorcrat or Republican would not. The main argument of the Republicans is that "marriage is a bedrock of American society." "The term marriage does only applies to the union of the man and the woman," and of course "marriage is for procreation."
I do not know what anyones arguments would be against civil unions, 'gays do not deserve rights!' would be a simply crazy political statement.

Since the argument is against the Term marriage, what objections would you have against Civil Unions and can they be supported Constitutionally?

As said above, the only argument would be gays do not deserve those rights, which is simply unheard of.

Would this defang the drive for a Constitutional Amendment to "protect" marriage. By passing such legislation, whether at the state or federal level, would the necessity of an Amendment be supportable?
If yes, gauge the enthusiasm of the publics response to the call.

It is not definite because it depends on the civil unions you are speaking of: are they the same exact rights that married couples get? If not gays will still be fighting to obtain the right to receive equal rights.

I have to say that I would not support creating a form of "civil union" for same-sex relationships. This is because I am strongly opposed to creating a "second class" form of marriage for such couples. I support giving same-sex marriage exactly the same legal status as opposite-sex marriage. "Civil unions" are better than nothing at all, I suppose -- just as a water fountain for "Coloreds" is better than dying of thirst -- but they remain a symbol of injustice.

"Civil unions" which do not have exactly the same legal status as marriages are discriminatory (a case could be made, therefore, that they are inherently unconstitutional); "civil unions" which have exactly the same legal status as marriages are marriages, and should be openly acknowledged as such.

The proposed anti-marriage amendment does not need to be defanged; it is already utterly toothless, a paper tiger designed to win the hearts and minds of the most socially conservative of voters. The public's response to a call for "civil unions" would be sharply divided, I think. Those who are against same-sex marriages will usually be against them; those who are for them will usually be for same-sex marriages.

I am more for the goverment getting out of the marriage biz completely- and for contract unions- not even "cvil" unions- a contract for "unions" that defines as much as possible with some "default" settings to it for those that don't want to take the time to make a more specific contract.

Make it by default for any two consenting adults for benefits topics- but allow it to expand to any combo consenting adults wants- line marriages, polygamy whatever. Let adults decide how they want to set up thier intertwining of unions, not the goverment- just let the goverment enforce the the contract. We, in reality, almost there. It is not really the right to marriage, but the right to dissolve the contract we really have the problems, that and tax and insurance/hospital visitation issues.

Universal health care would make the insurance issue moot.

Then, along you could also cure the custody/child support issue as well- pre-determine how many children in the marriage by contract, and specify child support and custody prior to the contract being signed.

Time to do away with the religious aspects of goverment sanctioned unions!

CruisingRam brings up some pretty good important points. But I would agree with Victoria Silverwolf wholeheartedly. If they are the same why call them differently. Just because some in the government say they will be the same scares me into is their ulterior motives behind this. Like not making them exactly the same. All you have to do is look at the republican platform that they pushed thru before the convention where they not only wanted an amendment banning same sex marriages they also wanted to ban civil unions for same sex.

Gay party members want differences recognized in the GOP platform



While the platform was showing on C-Span I found it funny how out in the general public they say we just want a amendment to ban same-sex marriages, but during the platform they something completely different. That is what is getting alot of the Log Cabin Republicans very ticked off.

I believe ALL marriages should be civil unions as far as the government is concerned and should be totally disconnected from the sexual combination of the couple involved. All civil and tax benefits currently connected to marriage should be attached instead to civil unions. Marriage should be a religious ceremony only where if you so choose you can receive the blessing of your Church. A church marriage would also be considered a civil union for governmental purposes.

Would you support the officially recognized/sanctioned development of Civil unions that are recognized in all of the States?

I would only accept this if the term marriage was removed completely and all unions, both heterosexual and homosexual, were considered to be Civil Unions. I see no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and I will not support a law that is inherently discriminatory.

Since the argument is against the Term marriage, what objections would you have against Civil Unions and can they be supported Constitutionally?

The term marriage does not belong to anyone, and it's ridiculous that people are trying to claim that it does. Marriage has been around for ages in many different societies and in many different forms. My objection is not to the term Civil Union or marriage or whatever. It's to the separate policy for homosexuals and heterosexuals. It's unecessary, and it's purpose is to disassociate the homosexual community from the heterosexual community. That is not progress.

I support gay marriage, however I recognize the simple fact the majority of Americans do not! Across all party lines the vote against is very strong. In pushing the subject before it is ready for a broader support does that not in effect damage the chances for acceptance? I am all for spitting in society's eye, BUT if in fact the early push for it causes it to be legislated out of reach does this not do more harm than good.
One can speechify all one wants about how unfair it seems and on the meaning of and the history of marriage, but there is the way we want the world to be and the way it is.
By pre empting the push for a Amendment to define marriage by setting down the definition of Civil unions--which are the SAME exact thing as Marriage except for the word itself, you not only protect the civil rights of homosexuals BUT you also provide a clear example of the stupidity of the argument against gay marriage.

Failing to do so IMO will only serve to set back the fight for it by decades. Once you get a Law on the books it is damn near impossible to get it removed. Allow and actual Amendment and it will be permanent--ever heard of one being removed from the Constitution.

I know where your are coming from christopher about taking baby steps in getting exceptance, but I think we might find out what we will actually get is separate but not equal law when it comes down to it. Because if they are separate then different laws can be made for them. A while ago I was all for taking it one chunk at a time, but see how this wont work also.
To your question about an amendment being removed one is prohibition.

D'OH!

Separate but equal! Yes exactly--But wouldn't that itself be beneficial? as long as you can delay and defuse the Amendment from ever gaining traction you are winning the fight.
By opening the argument on broader grounds Constitutionally you would IMO make it even harder to deny the right to marriage itself. you would also set precedents that allow a stronger Constitutional argument for and make it harder to go against.
Allow the present tempest to peter out and gain time for a more rational approach. Many of the polls that show how Americans feel about homosexuality also often show that younger Americans--if not open and accepting of homosexuals-- are often ambivalent regarding the subject. it really would not be too far down the road realistically to getting acceptance of the concept. The hard right is probably aware of this and trying to build bulwarks now that they can then defend their positions from that are hard to break given the nature of politics and legislation. Never attack a force uphill.

You might be right, however, if you look back, almost all generations, as they get older become less "tolerant", and trend more to the conservative or "middle of the road".

This does not always happen of course, but in most cases it does. Not to defray from an interesting and productive discussion, but I thought that was relevant.

My teens and early twenties was spent in the early 70's through the early 80's. If you asked my generation if the Drug laws were too tough, we would have said YES by a large margin, but it is this same generation that has created some of the toughest drug laws in history. Ask my generation, back then if the legal age to drink was too old at 19 and we would have told you "If we are old enough to die for our Country at 18, then we should be old enough to drink at 18". What is the legal age now? 21?. And it was my generation that passed that law.

It is something to consider. Nothing more.

Redliner you're picking two special points out of a vast gammut of American Politics, and backing up your inconceviably illogical point on it.

Your argument doesn't make any sense when you put it in context of your entire generation's push towards the progressive side of things.

Do you think your parent's generation is just as progressive as your generation? If so, why were the majority opposed to the abolition of Jim Crow? How about your grandparent's generation? Same again? Even when the majority believed women should not be allowed to vote?

On the important issues in America (Drinking Age is not one of them), each generation gets more progressive. How many states allowed legal growing and selling of Marijuana when your parents' generation were in charge? And is it my imagination or was the Drug War championed by a man who was in his 80's in the 1980's? That's your generation?

Smorpheus:

Might I point out that, in my post I also said the following:



You think then, that as people become older, they become less conservative?

I would be MORE then interested in how you would come to that interesting peice of "logic". (Grandma, make grandpa quit hitting off my doobie!)

My generation is NOW the middle aged fat guys that populate a good share of the House and Senate (Ever heard of a dude called John Edwards?). Are Drug laws NOW getting LESS restrictive? WE ARE IN CONTROL NOW!

If you want I can go through an entire gambit of Issues that my generation thought were important, now either are against or could care less about, but that is for a different debate, but I will assure you we HAVE changed the way we think from the time we wore bell bottoms and drove Muscle Cars.

I agree with redliner to some extent; people tend to become more conservative as they get older. This will reduce the number of people of any given generation who would support same-sex marriage as time progresses.

However, I think that this effect is more than counteracted by the trend for our society as a whole to become less tradition-bound over time. I think that, in every successive generation, more and more young people will be OK with gay marriage, and fewer and fewer will revert as they age.

With enough after-school specials, Lifetime Original movies, and sit-coms showing gay couples as regular spouses and moms & dads, the American voting public will come around in at most a couple of decades.

That's why I support ANY official recognition same-sex marriage/civil unions, etc. The way this kind of change seems to happen is that the reactionary side opposes giving even a little ground because from a tiny change, they fear that it's a slippery slope to genuine equality. (Think chattel slavery --> Jim Crow --> covert discrimination --> affirmative action & diversity action councils etc*). Most politicians from slave states didn't even want NEW, as-yet-nonexistant states to be free, in part because they knew that abolition was a dangerous idea that had to be stamped out in all possible circumstances.

But the progressive side gets a little official change, and then sure enough, before long even Joe Sixpack is saying, "Well heck, that civilly unioned gay couple down the street sure seems just like a married couple, jeez, why not just let 'em call it marriage? Separate's never equal, right?"

So I think any official recognition is good in that it will get the ball rolling on genuine equality. And I think hardline conservatives believe this too, which is why they want a full-on Constitutional amendment (!) banning anything that looks even remotely like gay marriage. "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile..."

*yeah I know there isn't actually universal racial equality but you get get the pattern, right?

I fail to see the connection between gay marriage and drug laws.

Drugs are often an integral part of youth experimentation, and many people grow out of the desire to do them, or they learn to do them more responsibly and less conspicuously. In this respect, there is an increasing degree of conservatism that comes with age, but sexual preference is not something that people generally grow out of, and there are a large number of gay and lesbian people within your generation who live as married people would.

If anything, gay marriage should be a conservative ideal, because it encourages homosexual couples to have committed, monogamous relationships.

Redliner, I would also suggest to counter your age=conservative theory, that while most people do indeed become more conservative as they age, many of the modern points of conservatism have come from the extreme swing to the left that happened at an almost eyeblink of time from the 60s to the late 80s. The sudden release from a strict morality to the mantra of "Do anything" so startled the American viewpoint of morality that you got the anticipated resistance to change that occurs when something new comes along. More importantly the over the top freedom resulted in a literal orgy--no pun intended--as Mores were not only challenged but suddenly declared the product of, and shield to, a weak mind. So everything was done to extremes. To use the sex and drug example-- we went from tightly controlled to Caligula.
The consequences of such actions were also deliberately pushed aside and ignored. So what we got was the unavoidable wreckage that results from anything done in excess.
I simply cannot equate that with the fight over the term marriage and the fact that a civil Union is in fact a marriage by any other name (no smileys with roses )
I also believe the age equals conservatism saying reflects more modern times and is a result of the sudden shift in moral standards from 1960 to now. While we are indeed seeing a shift BACK towards more conservative attitudes, I strongly believe it is more to and realization of the need for not just moderation-- for the now more open and accepting changes in attitudes-- BUT, of the NEED for responsibility and acceptance of the consequences of those actions. something that is still sorely lacking in the left end of the social movement. While the right refuse any lessening of the morality codes the Left fails to take any responsibility for the consequences of actions--except to get others to foot the bill.

Yet on the matter of Marriage as a concept i think most people are aware of the hypocrisy over the fight over a WORD. While Gays are still not actively accepted by a majority of Americans, the majority of those opposed are older and quite bluntly not long for this world. As the Boomers--and the few remaining elders-- begin to die off in the next few years the shifts in American character will be very noticeable. This will IMO truly show the strength of America. Whether the concepts embodied in the Constitution and the American Dream will still be championed by a country which no longer strongly reflects the make up of those who founded and built this nation. One of the interesting things to watch in Europe will be the fading and eventual loss of several cultures. They no longer reproduce the needed numbers and because their identity is founded entirely in flavor of race--Italian, French, etc--they will simply cease to be as they are swallowed up by their immigrants. because they are french simply because they are Born french instead of any definite idealogy. Where as in America we are the first example of government that is truly independent of culture or Race--regardless of the claims to fame and self importance of white judeo christians. Americas strength is shown in the great success of her immigrants, who come here and make the American dream and ideals of freedom their own. I firmly believe you could eradicate every last caucasian christian in America and the only change in her character would be the cosmetics of skin color.
That is to me the true beauty of the Constitution. In its original form its strength lies in recognition of the best of mankind NOT in any race or cultural flavor.

To finally bring this massive and somewhat wandering ramble BACK to gay marriage--"You must learn Focus grasshopper"-- Gays are simply Americans. Their rights will eventually be recognized freely, independent of any social taboos or prejudices. It is not a lifestyle choice like drugs or Free Love but a person. It goes against the true nature of America to deny them their rights.


There done,,,,,finally.

Wow, all this over the notion that people become more conservative as they get older.

This appears to be a revelation, but the reason I brought it up was that it appeared that someone wanted to extend the current teen - mid twenties crowd into a future demographic. No crystal ball here, just stating the obvious.

To win any political battle I would think one should take all aspects of the battle into consideration. Counting on the youth vote to be the same 20 years from now is tempting to do, but not always wise.

After Vietnam my generation pledged to NOT send our Sons and Daughters to War.

Grenada
Panama
Bosnia
Desert Storm
Afghanistan
Iraq

Times do change a person.

Would you support the officially recognized/sanctioned development of Civil unions that are recognized in all of the States?
Only if they were truly equal, which not a single proposed Civil Union law has been.
When the only reason to propose Civil Unions in the first place is to appease bigots, I find it hard to believe there is even the slightest chance for those unions to be truly equal. It should also be noted, as was seen in Virginia, that the bigots are not satisfied with preventing marriage, they want to dissolve any kind of civil recognition of same sex couples, and will pass laws to ensure that the basic legal steps that some of us have already taken (spending far more time and money than hetero couples have to, for a fraction of the recognition) are null and void.

Since the argument is against the Term marriage, what objections would you have against Civil Unions and can they be supported Constitutionally?
The argument is not against the term "marriage". We are debating with people who are full of spite and hatred for their fellow man.
Why should we acknowledge their opinions?

Would this defang the drive for a Constitutional Amendment to "protect" marriage. By passing such legislation, whether at the state or federal level, would the neccesity of an Amendment be supportable?
If yes, gauge the enthusiasm of the publics response to the call.
My feeling is that such a "compromise" (and why call it a compromise when only one side is giving anything up) only draws out the fight for equality. Every law that currently applies to marriage will have to be re-written, and the bigots will fight every single one of them.