Gays would be quite happy with civil unions, if they were actually equal. It should be noted that civil unions in the UK are actually legally equal in every way to marriage, and the gays are fine with that. The states? Not so much. DOMA is all about making sure there are rights categorically kept out of the reach of gay unions.
If you think civil unions are equal, try getting civilly united to a foreigner. It confers no legal standing to your spouse for visa benefits. Unlike in a straight marriage.

Then I'm down with a change for that. As we've discussed, I think the French actually have the right idea here.

But, sorry, gay folks don't have the right to rewrite the dictionary to paint their relationships in the light they would prefer. And at this point, they should realize that every time their very small minority makes any inroads, the far-larger evangelical community manages to mobilize enough people to turn their changes back.

And yet, the rest of us have to sit back and watch this culture war play out in every single election, while the rest of the country burns.

Why would you support that change? That would just motivate the evangelicals, and we must kow-tow to their sensibilities obviously because they're terrorists who will make the country grind to a halt if they don't get their way.

Gays are, contrary to popular belief, not merely fighting for the word marriage to be attached to their union. Marriage is a really long term institution which affects all kinds of monetary business throughout life, including but not limited to: family relocations, inheritance taxes, benefits and the allocation of legal protections in the sharing of property and children. When you tell gays to just pursue all of that in separate legal ventures you're telling them to spend thousands and thousands over their lifetime in extra costs, which we set up the institution of marriage precisely to mitigate and mediate these costs. I think you'd be pushing for people to "accept your lifestyle" (really? are we still pretending gay people don't exist, they're making a lifestyle choice here?) if it cost you a lot of money. This isn't a meaningless political statement, this is real life and real money. Most gays I know could deal with civil unions if they could just live in the same country as their spouse and stop having to pay a million dollar gay tax. The evangelicals can keep their magic word.

Basically, Squee, I really am pro-Gay-marriage at this point, I'm just against them calling it that. So as far as I'm concerned, stuff the civil union laws full of all these factors your mentioning.....but leave it at that.

Why? Because it is that word --marriage-- and that word alone, that serves to motivate the militant Jesus Freaks. You said it yourself: they're terrorists who will let the country burn down to get their way, and they DO NOT and WILL NOT accept gays as being anything but heathen sodomites. You CANNOT control how people think, "hate crimes" laws notwithstanding.

"they're terrorists who will let the country burn down to get their way, and they DO NOT and WILL NOT accept gays as being anything but heathen sodomites"

Yup, after all, utilizing the democratic system and voting to get your way is SUCH a terrorist thing, isn't it?

Do you have ANY IDEA how bad that statement makes you look? Do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

coughcoughstrawmancoughcough

I'm sorry; excuse me. Got a frog in my throat.

If you read/quote everything I'm saying, I make precisely that point. I was wrong on the numbers, though; the score stands 31-5, not 4. Not a big difference, but still.....

And actually, while I initially used the word "terrorist" only for rhetorical value, the more I think about it, the more apt it sounds to my mind. Consider:

1.) Both evangelicals and Al Qaeda are determined to ram their concept of God and its attendant creed down the throats of others. Both have spoken of using, or have used force to secure their aims. Tea Party, anyone?

2.) Both groups have engaged in rampant propaganda to get people on their side. Though, curiously, I cannot think of a single straight-up falsehood Al Qaeda has bothered to tell, while I can supply at least five links within five seconds of being asked where an evangelical or one of their pol or pundit proxies has done so, willfully and knowingly. (Note that I make a distinction for these purposes between propaganda, which is one side's version of the truth, and is usually at least half-true from a purely neutral perspective, and things which can be immediately proven to be 100% false.)

3.) Finally, I note that for the last eight years, Evangelicals were real quiet about things they claim to be against. They barely raised the abortion issue during Bush's Presidency, because they knew it would just mobilize the far left, and jeopardize things that have since become very important to them, such as school-choice vouchers for their not-for-proft, no-really-for-profit church schools and the like.

How is THAT similar to Al Qaeda? Why, I'm glad you asked! Here's how:

Both the Evangelical movement and Al Qaeda benefit from an extensive network of support organizations that do not publicize their mutual involvement. In fact, one could almost say they stole that idea from Scientology. In Al Qaeda's case, it's radical madrassas and "Islamic Aid" organizations; in the Evangelical movement's case, it's think-tanks, "non-profit" charities (used to provide high-dollar employment to associated pastors and personnel off the church books), the aforementioned church schools, and various other ventures.

The short version? Both movements are vertically integrated with all the finance and support organs they need to be financially self-sustaining, and to serve as proxies in the public debate when needed.

Now, to return directly to your comment: Like I just said, the Evangelicals got real quiet during the Bush era, because they were getting paid off, really. But now that Obama has taken office, they're suddenly against things they were "for" just a year ago, and doing everything in their power to obstruct everything they can, so they can declare Obama a failure, and their pet pols can return to power and the real flow of goodies can resume.

And that's not even the first time in the last twenty years that the far-right has proven willing to shut the whole country down to get their way, it's only the most recent example.

I used terrorist in my paraphrasing because the argument seems to be that the evangelicals will force unpleasant consequences on everybody as blackmail if they don't get their way, by refusing to let the country work on its other business, and this is why its apparently the gays' fault for fighting for very real rights on their part. Personally I think our democracy can walk and chew gum at the same time, but if its true, I think the blame should be laid at the churchies rather than the gays.

"How long's it going to be before the gay folks stop hurting us all (but themselves more than anyone else) by making sure the militant churchies are mobilized in each and every election?"

How long's it going to be before the militant churchies stop hurting us all?
Fixed that for you.

I want to be able to marry 2 women at the same time.

It's part of my culture, and america's laws DISCRIMINATE against my culture. This is wrong.

Polygamy should be legalized.

Furthermore, I also love my dog, and my dog loves me, thus I should be able to marry my dog too. Please ALSO explain why that is illegal?

So Squee, do you feel Iran's nuclear weapons project is a much lower priority than gay marriage?

Show me proof your dog wants to commit to marriage and we'll talk (yeah, I didn't think so).

Polygamy on the other hand you have more of an argument assuming everyone involved is there of their own free will, but I think there are more debatable legal issues to that than there are with gay marriage (of which there are zero more than hetereosexual marriage).

I think Iran is of infinitely higher priority than keeping gays from getting married, sure, but your side is finding all kinds of time to obsess about that instead. Seems rather silly doesn't it?

So Squee, if I was to vote for you to be able to marry another chick, will you allow me to nuke Iran?

I believe upon detailed inspection you will find the offer to be equally balanced.

Jellyfish, my dog and I communictate during our mutual prayer. You see, my dog practices a tai-che meditation method while she walks and pisses and digs and stuff. During that time, according to our shared religious beliefs, the flying spaghetti monster connects us together.

She once said she would love to mary(nate) me.