City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Firestarter 0]

The current federal law says it's left up to states. Fine.

 

What's going on right now is a state issue. Bush has no interest in the DOMA, about as much as he wanted to talk to the UN, he just wants to go ahead and mess with the Constitution.

Speaking of the Constitution, ever heard of that minor little difficulty called the "full faith and credit" clause? It's Article IV, Section I. A marriage in one state must be respected in all others, according to the Constitution. The President is trying to ensure that the people and the states have the opportunity to make decisions on issues that will affect them - rather than merely a handful of judges handing down decrees redefining the building blocks of our society. Personally, I'd call that preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, as he's sworn to do, not "messing" with it.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Wasn't part of that cleared up by the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that states didn't have to accept out of state marriages?

 

Honest question, I don't know the answer.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

rather than merely a handful of judges handing down decrees redefining the building blocks of our society

I've yet to figure out how allowing gay marriage will destroy our society.

 

And, really, changing the Constitution to take away rights from a particular group of American citizens is *very* unsettling. Who or what does gay marriage harm? Nobody and nothing. So to change the Constitution to discriminate against them is ridiculous.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The President is trying to ensure that the people and the states have the opportunity to make decisions on issues that will affect them - rather than merely a handful of judges handing down decrees redefining the building blocks of our society.

Ahahaha.

 

The President is trying to further a right-wing agenda and you know it. And this will, if there's still decent people out there, not pass, just like all the other crap he's shoveled up in the past few months. I don't think 75% of states will support it. Nobody is eager to make a federal blanket rule on the issue right now.

 

This is purely political, to either make the Democratic candidates agree with him or support full federal licenses for gays.

 

Considering he believes marriage is some sacred institution, you'd think he would be working towards the goal people like you and me ultimately want, which is the government out of marriage. This proposal does not help us get there. In fact, it may actually put it in reverse.

 

He is not trying to help anyone do anything. He is simply trying to help himself.

[Justice 0]

Wasn't part of that cleared up by the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that states didn't have to accept out of state marriages?

 

Honest question, I don't know the answer.

Yes, that's the just of it. They do not have to recognize marriages or unions between same-sex individuals.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Andrew Sullivan, the conservative gay guy that supported Bush up until about, oh, today, and defended the Iraqi war, etc etc etc? Remember him? Now he's up in arms.

 

From his site

 

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign.He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

 

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

[Firestarter 0]

...

 

Funny, I don't feel as if I'm under a "profound attack." Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

An agenda is being applied to the Constitution.

 

Perhaps going into hysterics isn't inappropriate.

[Firestarter 0]

An agenda is being applied to the Constitution

To defend family values and prevent unelected officials from deciding what's best for the people in direct contradiction to every measure they've passed themselves? I'm still not outraged. In fact, I'm rather happy. The more gay people indulge in hissyfits over this nonsense the more ridiculous they look. I won't even get into how absurd all the ever so enlightened liberals courageously defending their "lifestyle choice" appear.

 

Frankly, on the basis of politics, culture, and social values alone, I'd much, much rather be heterosexual.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

To defend family values

That is a political agenda.

 

and prevent unelected officials from deciding what's best for the people in direct

contradiction to every measure they've passed themselves?

 

This is not conservation. This is not conductive to a free society. These are state conflicts being handled in state courts by state governments.

 

I'm still not outraged. In fact, I'm rather happy. The more gay people indulge in hissyfits over this nonsense the more ridiculous they look. I won't even get into how absurd all the ever so enlightened liberals courageously defending their "lifestyle" appear.

 

Get this in your head:

 

GEORGE W BUSH HATES YOU.

 

And don't tell me he's a nice guy, don't tell me he's just doing what the people want, don't tell me that he's just a religious fellow. He hates you. Hate goes beyond rage.

 

Hate is turning a blind eye. Hate is using people to score political points. Hate is intentionally being ignorant. Stripping rights away is hate.

 

And could you guess there was a new Al-Qaeda video tape today? You, if you're like the majority of the country, did not. And why? Because while war is being waged, people are dying, nations are unstable, soldiers are being shot at, and Osama's henchmen are sending threats via videotape, this President has chosen to hold a press conference about gay marriage.

 

How's it go again?

 

to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

Failure.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well, the problem here is the Democrats are in a tough spot. If they want to look like hypocrites they will help pass this bill. I really can't believe this is actually happening. Leave the damn constitution alone, leave the issue up to the individual states like Republicans supposedly want in the first place. I don't see how this doesn't fall under "expanding government" which Bush likes to claim democrats are all about.

[Firestarter 0]

GEORGE W BUSH HATES YOU

Fascinating. I guess he was just setting me up for a fall when he put my nomination before the Senate. He's told me I'm doing good work at least ten times but I see now that he was looking for a way to fire me. And the three or four times he gave me a hug and the two dozen or more times he shook my hand, he must've thrown up as soon as I left the room. He's given me a job I love. He's commended me when I've done well, and corrected and guided me when I've made mistakes. He respects me as a person and asks about my wife whenever I'm lucky enough to see him. I suppose I should take that as a sign that he prays every night for God to strike her down and he just wants to know if it's happened yet? He sent her flowers when we got married, and on Christmas Day, when she gave up smoking. Maybe they concealed poison needles or something and she simply got lucky. He's asked me twice if she's started running again. (She ran a couple of marathons in high school.) Oh, and the gay ambassador he nominated for the first time in history, using his White House to get him through Congress? I'm sure that was another disguised attempt to oppress and perhaps enslave gay people, though I'm not quite sure how.

 

Sorry, I'm laughing too much to continue, and I've still got a few papers to read, and another to write.

 

Your comical crusade is charmingly brain-dead, as offensively patronising as anything the left has ever come up with (paying black people to have illegitimate children comes to mind), and devoid of any knowledge or experience whatsoever. I'll leave you to it.

[NoCalMike 0]

GEORGE W BUSH HATES YOU

Fascinating. I guess he was just setting me up for a fall when he put my nomination before the Senate. He's told me I'm doing good work at least ten times but I see now that he was looking for a way to fire me. And the three or four times he gave me a hug and the two dozen or more times he shook my hand, he must've thrown up as soon as I left the room. He's given me a job I love. He's commended me when I've done well, and corrected and guided me when I've made mistakes. He respects me as a person and asks about my wife whenever I'm lucky enough to see him. I suppose I should take that as a sign that he prays every night for God to strike her down and he just wants to know if it's happened yet? He sent her flowers when we got married, and on Christmas Day, when she gave up smoking. Maybe they concealed poison needles or something and she simply got lucky. He's asked me twice if she's started running again. (She ran a couple of marathons in high school.) Sorry, I'm laughing too much to continue, and I've still got a few papers to read, and another to write.

 

Your comical crusade is charmingly brain-dead and devoid of any knowledge or experience whatsoever. I'll leave you to it.

umm.....Wife..? Married? How? Dammit Marney how could you destroy the sanctity of marriage like that?

[Firestarter 0]

umm.....Wife..? Married? How? Dammit Marney how could you destroy the sanctity of marriage like that?

Well see, I didn't ask the government for any benefits as a result of a private ceremony... so I didn't.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You actually missed an important point of what I wrote, that hate doesn't exactly mean he wants to grab a knife and kill you. Hate comes in many forms.

 

If this man was being honest about his feelings of marriage, he'd just offer licenses and put marriage back in the church. That way, gay people aren't getting married. If he agreed in the previous conclusions we've reached in these arguements, about how the federal government would handle marriage, he would have proposed those changes.

 

But no, he proposed these. Because he has no interest (or at least no serious interest) in protecting marriage. Instead, he has an interest of setting a radical religious-based agenda to hate gays/lesbians/bisexuals. Congratulations.

 

And all while we're fighting religious zealotry overseas.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

To defend family values

 

Won't somebody think of the children?!

 

Allowing gay marriages harms families how?

[Highland 0]

I have to agree with Bush on this one: Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, else where is the line drawn? Also, he is speaking for an overwhelming majority of Americans; the only sticky point is whether this requires a Constitutional amendment or not.

Gays and lesbians are a tiny minority that have a hugely disproportionate amount of influence today based solely on their orientation. Should the president be blamed for siding with a greator majority over a tiny fraction of the population?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I have to agree with Bush on this one: Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, else where is the line drawn?

OMG! Men marrying dogs! Women marrying toaster ovens! Men marrying 7-year old boys! OMG! OMG! Simple solution - "marriage = union between 2 legally consenting adults." Throw in some language to nullify incestuous relationships.

 

Gays and lesbians are a tiny minority that have a hugely disproportionate amount of influence today based solely on their orientation.

What influence, exactly, do they have over society?

 

Should the president be blamed for siding with a greator majority over a tiny fraction of the population?

I'm sure an overwhelming majority of the country was in favor of black people being slaves back in the early days of our country. I guess that made it right, too.

[Guest MikeSC]

You actually missed an important point of what I wrote, that hate doesn't exactly mean he wants to grab a knife and kill you. Hate comes in many forms.

 

If this man was being honest about his feelings of marriage, he'd just offer licenses and put marriage back in the church. That way, gay people aren't getting married. If he agreed in the previous conclusions we've reached in these arguements, about how the federal government would handle marriage, he would have proposed those changes.

 

But no, he proposed these. Because he has no interest (or at least no serious interest) in protecting marriage. Instead, he has an interest of setting a radical religious-based agenda to hate gays/lesbians/bisexuals. Congratulations.

 

And all while we're fighting religious zealotry overseas.

Or maybe, just maybe, he is looking at the situation differently. This is being discussed on another board I frequent, and there is an argument there that is going to cause problems.

 

Let's say gay marriage becomes legal. Let's say that the courts say that gay couples get all of the benefits if hetero couples.

 

How could you then justify forbidding adult family members from marrying? Is there any legal justification for banning incest, outside of the obvious moral problems?

 

Birth defects wouldn't hold up in court (we won't legalize eugenics and that is what that basically arguing --- and not all marriages even result in children, so the point is necessarily moot) --- so how could you justify forbidding it, outside of the obvious "wrong" nature of it?

 

How about polygamy? If two people in love can get married, why can't three? What legal justification? Marriage is getting redefined if this passes and actually defining it is going to become nigh impossible.

 

If you doubt that these issues won't be brought up and dressed up in the same language as this issue, you're naive.

 

When smoking became basically illegal, many argued that other "vices" will be targeted --- and we've seen the first fast food lawsuits being filed in the last year or two.

 

I have no doubt that there is a definite group of gays who legitimately want marriage and legitimately want the symbolism of the act. I honestly feel for them. I personally do not care who gets married.

 

I ALSO have no doubt that there is an undercurrent of people who are USING the gay community to try and bring about the end of the entire institution of marriage. They view marriage as wrong and an evil against women and want to see it completely abolished and this is simply step one in the plan.

To defend family values 

That is a political agenda.

It's a good political agenda. Sometimes, things have been done for THOUSANDS OF YEARS for a reason.

and prevent unelected officials from deciding what's best for the people in direct contradiction to every measure they've passed themselves?

This is not conservation. This is not conductive to a free society. These are state conflicts being handled in state courts by state governments.

Unelected judges passing rules by fiat IS conductive to free society? Strange definition of freedom you got there.

I'm still not outraged. In fact, I'm rather happy. The more gay people indulge in hissyfits over this nonsense the more ridiculous they look. I won't even get into how absurd all the ever so enlightened liberals courageously defending their "lifestyle" appear.

Get this in your head:

 

GEORGE W BUSH HATES YOU.

Do you know how absolutely silly you sound, Jobber? Heck, even the right at their worst didn't act as flaky about Clinton as the left acts about Bush.

And don't tell me he's a nice guy, don't tell me he's just doing what the people want, don't tell me that he's just a religious fellow. He hates you. Hate goes beyond rage.

Sounds like somebody is placing HIS issues onto others.

Hate is turning a blind eye. Hate is using people to score political points. Hate is intentionally being ignorant. Stripping rights away is hate.

Hate is telling anybody who disagrees that their evil and hateful.

And could you guess there was a new Al-Qaeda video tape today? You, if you're like the majority of the country, did not. And why? Because while war is being waged, people are dying, nations are unstable, soldiers are being shot at, and Osama's henchmen are sending threats via videotape, this President has chosen to hold a press conference about gay marriage.

You have lost your mind.

 

You know that, don't you?

 

You're completely lost your mind.

How's it go again?

  to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Failure.

So, anybody who sees things differently than you is a traitor and opposed to the Constitution?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I have to agree with Bush on this one: Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, else where is the line drawn?

OMG! Men marrying dogs! Women marrying toaster ovens! Men marrying 7-year old boys! OMG! OMG! Simple solution - "marriage = union between 2 legally consenting adults." Throw in some language to nullify incestuous relationships.

And you do that how?

 

CA has pretty clear law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, yet there is a good chance it'll be overridden by a court.

 

So, how would you "throw in some language" to nullify ANYTHING? Can anything trump the most liberal interpretation of the equal protection clause?

Should the president be blamed for siding with a greator majority over a tiny fraction of the population?

I'm sure an overwhelming majority of the country was in favor of black people being slaves back in the early days of our country. I guess that made it right, too.

Actually, no. Slavery was hardly all that popular --- most people didn't think it was worth going to war over, but it didn't impact most people at all, hate to tell you.

 

But, of course, you seem to ignore that all groups will paint themselves with that same banner to get their "rights". I find it almost cute that you can't see that.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

There used to be laws in the South saying that blacks and whites couldn't get married, and a overwhelming majority of people(both black and white) agreed with it.

 

Does that mean its alright? If they tried to bring back this law today and tried to impliment it in the constitution, would it be okay also?

 

The major point that I have against this whole thing is that on one hand, Bush has shown that he wants the government even more involved in the stressing of the importance of marrige in America through more benifits for married couples, while at the same time trying prevent the same privilidge to others. How anyone can even slightly agree with blatant discrimination where the only points raised for the admendment have been solely religious based(something that I could SWEAR was supposed to be separated from the government).

 

How two people in love and wanting to get the same benifits allocated to other Americans in the exact same situtation will tear down society is beyound me. But hey, women being allowed to vote, and minorities being integrated with whites were suppose to tear down society too, right?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Wasn't part of that cleared up by the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that states didn't have to accept out of state marriages?

 

Honest question, I don't know the answer.

Yes, that's the just of it. They do not have to recognize marriages or unions between same-sex individuals.

So if that's the case, why do we need, as Marney said...

 

Speaking of the Constitution, ever heard of that minor little difficulty called the "full faith and credit" clause? It's Article IV, Section I. A marriage in one state must be respected in all others, according to the Constitution. The President is trying to ensure that the people and the states have the opportunity to make decisions on issues that will affect them - rather than merely a handful of judges handing down decrees redefining the building blocks of our society.

 

That's just redundant legislation.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wasn't part of that cleared up by the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that states didn't have to accept out of state marriages?

 

Honest question, I don't know the answer.

Yes, that's the just of it. They do not have to recognize marriages or unions between same-sex individuals.

So if that's the case, why do we need, as Marney said...

 

Speaking of the Constitution, ever heard of that minor little difficulty called the "full faith and credit" clause? It's Article IV, Section I. A marriage in one state must be respected in all others, according to the Constitution. The President is trying to ensure that the people and the states have the opportunity to make decisions on issues that will affect them - rather than merely a handful of judges handing down decrees redefining the building blocks of our society.

 

That's just redundant legislation.

Marney is right. States must respect marriages passed in other states.

The Defense of Marriage Act won't pass judicial review.

 

It's sad this this issue needs a Constitutional amendment --- but it does.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

You actually missed an important point of what I wrote, that hate doesn't exactly mean he wants to grab a knife and kill you. Hate comes in many forms.

 

If this man was being honest about his feelings of marriage, he'd just offer licenses and put marriage back in the church. That way, gay people aren't getting married. If he agreed in the previous conclusions we've reached in these arguements, about how the federal government would handle marriage, he would have proposed those changes.

 

But no, he proposed these. Because he has no interest (or at least no serious interest) in protecting marriage. Instead, he has an interest of setting a radical religious-based agenda to hate gays/lesbians/bisexuals. Congratulations.

 

And all while we're fighting religious zealotry overseas.

Or maybe, just maybe, he is looking at the situation differently. This is being discussed on another board I frequent, and there is an argument there that is going to cause problems.

 

Let's say gay marriage becomes legal. Let's say that the courts say that gay couples get all of the benefits if hetero couples.

 

How could you then justify forbidding adult family members from marrying? Is there any legal justification for banning incest, outside of the obvious moral problems?

 

Birth defects wouldn't hold up in court (we won't legalize eugenics and that is what that basically arguing --- and not all marriages even result in children, so the point is necessarily moot) --- so how could you justify forbidding it, outside of the obvious "wrong" nature of it?

 

How about polygamy? If two people in love can get married, why can't three? What legal justification? Marriage is getting redefined if this passes and actually defining it is going to become nigh impossible.

 

If you doubt that these issues won't be brought up and dressed up in the same language as this issue, you're naive.

 

When smoking became basically illegal, many argued that other "vices" will be targeted --- and we've seen the first fast food lawsuits being filed in the last year or two.

 

I have no doubt that there is a definite group of gays who legitimately want marriage and legitimately want the symbolism of the act. I honestly feel for them. I personally do not care who gets married.

 

I ALSO have no doubt that there is an undercurrent of people who are USING the gay community to try and bring about the end of the entire institution of marriage. They view marriage as wrong and an evil against women and want to see it completely abolished and this is simply step one in the plan.

The same thing was said when prohibition was lifted. It would lead to the legalization of all types of illegal drugs, yet here we are over a quarter of a century later, and that hasn't happened yet.

 

And I have said it once and will again, putting homosexuality and incest in the same catagory is just plain ignorant and irresponsible, although I do see the point you are attempting to raise, it still seems like it parallels them.

 

And man...its been a while since I've seen a good Feminist Conspiricy Theory....thanks!

[Styles 0]

I've got to agree with Bush here. I have nothing against gays doing what Marney did and having a private non-government recognized ceremony or even civil unions that would provide the benefits but this will open up pandora's box if we allow gay marriage.

For those of you that say "I can't see how allowing gays to get married hurts society", what about 3 people? Why not? Two men or two women have a loving relationship and deserve to be married and recognized as so. Well, why not 3 people who love each other and are committed in the same way? Put the language in that says 2 people only you say? Isn't that just as much discrimination? If you start making exceptions for one SMALL MINORITY you will have to make excpetions for others too, and before you know it marriage as an institution is meaningless and the American family becomes more warped than it was before. I have no problem with states offering civil unions recognized by, well, states that recognize civil unions. And any good, straight thinking-erm...logical thinking gay person should be happy with that. It's the activists that simply want more power to the gay/liberal agenda that are dmenading that they be recognized as marriages. And it's not fair to the good, honest gay people who would be very happy with civil unions. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for something like this but I await a high court shutting down this nonsense once and for all.

[Skywarp! 0]

...

 

Funny, I don't feel as if I'm under a "profound attack." Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

That's because you aren't gay. For gay people, it is an extremist attack, because it's placing limits on the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing that this country is supposed to be about.

[Ripper 0]

I've got to agree with Bush here. I have nothing against gays doing what Marney did and having a private non-government recognized ceremony or even civil unions that would provide the benefits but this will open up pandora's box if we allow gay marriage.

For those of you that say "I can't see how allowing gays to get married hurts society", what about 3 people? Why not? Two men or two women have a loving relationship and deserve to be married and recognized as so. Well, why not 3 people who love each other and are committed in the same way? Put the language in that says 2 people only you say? Isn't that just as much discrimination? If you start making exceptions for one SMALL MINORITY you will have to make excpetions for others too, and before you know it marriage as an institution is meaningless and the American family becomes more warped than it was before. I have no problem with states offering civil unions recognized by, well, states that recognize civil unions. And any good, straight thinking-erm...logical thinking gay person should be happy with that. It's the activists that simply want more power to the gay/liberal agenda that are dmenading that they be recognized as marriages. And it's not fair to the good, honest gay people who would be very happy with civil unions. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for something like this but I await a high court shutting down this nonsense once and for all.

The state of Georgia wouldn't pass a law that allowed civil unions to be recognize and numerous polls on it show a overwhelming majority of the people in the state don't think they should be.

 

Lets not get this confused, this has nothing to do saving marrige and making it pure or what the fuck ever people are arguing. Bush and others thing being gay is wrong and doing anything that recognizes that there MAY be an alternative way of thinking about it would be seen as supporting homosexuality. Civil Unions with the same benifits still would never be allowed just as gay marrige.

 

Which is funny seeing as there no real reason it shouldn't be legal now. Seriously, the laws make as much since as if two people wanted to get married and the state said no because they thought the woman was too good looking for the guy. Or the guy was too tall for the woman.

[Styles 0]

...

 

Funny, I don't feel as if I'm under a "profound attack." Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

That's because you aren't gay.

*BUZZ* Try again...

[Ripper 0]

...

 

Funny, I don't feel as if I'm under a "profound attack." Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

That's because you aren't gay. For gay people, it is an extremist attack, because it's placing limits on the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing that this country is supposed to be about.

Tee-Hee-Hee....

[Styles 0]

Lets not get this confused, this has nothing to do saving marrige and making it pure or what the fuck ever people are arguing.  Bush and others thing being gay is wrong and doing anything that recognizes that there MAY be an alternative way of thinking about it would be seen as supporting homosexuality.  Civil Unions with the same benifits still would never be allowed just as gay marrige. 

So, because you say it, it is so? Why is it hard to believe that he genuinely thinks like I and over 60% of Americans think? I have nothing against making a benefit for gay people to form a union (and allow it up to the states to recognize it). It would be up to the gay people to live in a state that recognized them as a union. "Marriage" truly will open up a whole new can of worms if it is tinkered with, it's a very slippery slope and I'm not prepared to completely abandon the idea of the traditional American family just yet...