Get back home alive so you can help fight homophobes domestically.

That said, I disagree strongly with those who refuse civil unions. The historical precedent set by many countries either have, or are in process of, legalizing same-sex marriage is that often civil unions serve as sort “marriage training wheels”.

The Netherlands, far and away one of the most liberal societies on Earth, went through a civil unions period before realizing that it was silly to not just legalize same-sex marriage. A similar phenomenon is working it’s way through the Nordic countries right. Civil unions have been around a few years in most of them. Now the general public comfort level has progressed to the point where there’s no strong opposition to upgrading to full marriage. Norway has already done so. Iceland was considering it before their economy collapsed and their government fell apart. But if their lesbian PM stays in office after Spring elections I have no doubt it will advance. Pretty much all the parties in the Swedish Riksdag support upgrading except for the Christian Democrats, who only have a small number of seats and are being politely (the Swedish way) told to get over themselves.

Libertarian ideals or activist fantasies aside, in a democracy it is not possible to impose law unless a majority are at least indifferent to the law. People whine and cry about how unfair that is until they’re blue in the face. But that’s the way it is.

So there is more than a little merit to working in stages until you get to the desired result. You can’t always win what you want all at once. After all, it took upwards of two centuries to progress from blacks being slaves to a black being president. In an ideal world that should have been possible as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world. So playing the game is necessary, even if it’s unappealing.

I agree that the idea of eliminating state-sponsored marriage is pretty much a libertarian pipe dream that isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes. However, I’ve found it helpful to bring up the concept in discussions with those who oppose SSM. Presenting that alternative, and then asking them how they would feel if suddenly their marriage was annulled and replaced with their understanding of a ‘civil union’, really helps some of these people grasp the concept that ‘separate but equal’ isn’t enough. (Even if it’s something that gays in some states might have to live with for the time being. )

Because married heterosexuals will never go for that, and thus the politicians never will either. It would never happen, so I don’t understand why people keep suggesting it??? It’s not a viable solution to equal treatment. It would seem to those able to marry that they have to settle for something less to appease gay people.

And that would be the truth.

Instead of them settling for something less, we need to continue to insist of having the same opportunity to marriage.

The Democrat Party long ago ceased to have any relevance for us. In their desire to get-out the homophobic Black churchgoing vote (Prop. 8, anyone?), they have thrown us under the bus.

After all, it’s not as if we’re likely to vote Republican, right?

Delegitimize our enemies? I do not consider them legitimate to begin with. Legitimate Americans, Legitimate Christians, etc. Well, I do consider them legitimate bigots I guess, but our going for Civil Unions will not delegitimize them from that label.

All it will do is make it harder to get marriage later on. Later, most people will say, “Well they already have all the rights in the form of civil unions, so why open a contentious fight for marriage now?” That is what will happen.

I say hold out for full gay marriage rights in each state, but if Obama moves to introduce a national Civil Unions bill, we should support that because he has pledged to make that bill truly equal in everything but name. Foreign partners would have the ability to come to this country, etc, etc… Civil Unions as they stand now in a handful of states are not equal. If the Feds can make them equal, that would be a first step in desensitizing the bigots to the idea that we are real people too….

But we should hold firm that a national civil union law will not invalidate marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut or (hopefully) California, and that each state can upgrade to marriage whenever the issue is passed by legislative, judicial or ballot box procedures. All are valid.

I believe once full equality is in place, it would be easier for LGTB groups to challenge the national civil union law in the Supreme Court and argue that since we have all the rights, we can’t be denied the name just because some are offended by the idea.

There is no constitutional protection against being offended. I think a National Civil Unions law would set up the opportunity to a successful court ruling for full marriage rights..

Are you out of your mind?

Yes, civil unions are easier to sell – because they enforce discrimination. Civil unions are marital segregation. They tell the world that we’re different, that we’re not good enough to marry, that our relationships are different to those of all the heterosexuals around us.

Yes, civil unions are easier to sell – because they support bigotry. And no, we should not accept them. Personally I would like to see every gay man and woman boycott civil unions, refuse to accept them, see them for the insult they are. Unfortunately there are some people who are willing to settle, to take the scraps they’re offered rather than pushing for a seat at the table.

Well this bitch deserves better than scraps, and so does the rest of the gay community, so take your platitudes and shove them.

No, civil unions only reward homophobia rather than delegitimize it. Any thing less than marriage signals than lesbian and gay couples are less than heterosexuals in social and political terms. I for one am not about to accept or partake in a “separate but equal” institution.