With respect to Ms. Vanasco, a little research before posting something like this would go a long way towards improving credibility within the community.

New York is NOT the only state that abides by the requirements of the US Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. New Mexico also accepts any marriage performed in any state, regardless of the genders of the couple, no matter what their own state’s particular laws are with regards to gay marriage.

Now I have not yet had time to do the research myself, but I have heard from several Nevadans that the new Nevada DP bill also requires that state to recognize gay marriages from other states as valid Domestic Partnerships in Nevada, without registration or further paperwork. While it is not, admittedly, full equality or compliance with US Constitutional Law, it is at least a step in the right direction.

On a final note, I repeatedly see Ms. Vanasco repeat the Mainsteam Media’s oft-used phrass “substantially the same”, “almost the same” or “many of the same” benefits of marriage when referring to Domestic Partnerships.

As a commentator and Editor-in-Chief of 365gay.com, you do our community a huge disservice. Call it what it is! Domestic Partnerships are second class citizenship to placate the religious majority who only believe that Separation of Church and State should work one way – in their favor. Civil Marriage is exactly that: CIVIL. A legal contract recorded by the state that confers specific rights and responsibilities to the couple involved, with absolutely no religious connotations whatsoever. Civil Unions are “separate but unequal” unless they apply to ALL couples, homo- or heterosexual.

It’s time to stop dancing around and speak out for the TRUTH. As Editor-in-Chief of this site, I would hope that would be your goal. Clearly, based on your comments here, it isn’t.

We’re having some spectacular scandals in Massachusetts right now, and one thing that’s coming to light is how unreasonably powerful the Senate President and House Speaker are. They’re more powerful than the governor, they get arrogant, they’re petty, they punish anyone who opposes them (including stripping legislators of committee chairs, which means money), and killing bills of people they don’t like by not allowing them out of committee. This is true in Rhode Island as well.

The primary difference is that, recently, we’ve had a Senate President and House Speaker who favored gay rights, and, in Rhode Island, I think that *both* oppose marriage equality.

One of the reasons we have gay marriage in MA is because former House Speaker, the very Catholic Tom Finnernan, would not allow any movement on gay-relationship bills. In the late nineties, they actually passed a domestic partnership bill for the city of Boston, and Finnernan had the state legislature undo it. The end result? Some angry gay couples took it to the courts, and the rest is history.

Now on to New York where I am. Tom Duane thinks its a done deal, I hope he’s right. What if those he’s brought around to voting yes are just saying that and once it comes up for a vote, they vote no to derail passage? It sounds very cynical, but I don’t trust a lot of them. Most of them are career politicians, career comes first, our rights come last as we’ve seen with Obama flip-flopping on DADT and DOMA.

Bad: “Protect Traditional Marriage” = your marriage is under attack.

Bad: “Gay Marriage” = should homosexuals get the right to marry?

Bad: “Our families need protection too” = what, they have families now? Are those really families?

Bad: “It’s about love” = homosexuals in love? Ick.

Those slogans raise questions in the married heterosexual’s mind that we really don’t want raised, because the answers are unpredictable.

Here are better ones for us:

Good: “Legalize Marriage” = what? it’s illegal for someone?

Good: “Protect our Families” = what? Their families are in danger?

We should leave love out of this, because that causes the heterosexual to speculate about sex acts, and that raises the ick factor, which works against us.

In other words, our rhetoric must be pro-marriage and pro-family.

In rhetoric, not on signs, we should also point out that civil unions attack marriage. In the absence of legal marriage, civil union laws are inevitable, because they address real needs. However, they include unmarried heterosexuals, removing the incentive to marry. The only way to protect marriage is to legalize it for everyone.