Okay...

Goal: Get complete equal treatment for gays, i.e., marriage redefined as a union between two people.

Ways:
1- Achieve the goal all at once.
2- Go with civil unions, try for the rest later.

Obstacles:
a- Public opinion is against both ways.
b- The government is controlled by people with that opinion.

So you must either:
-Get people sympathetic to the cause into power
-Change public opinion to your cause (either by swaying the civil union people towards marriage, or swaying the marriage people toward civil unions)
-Both

I think propaganda would definitely be a good way to go to change public opinion; I think contributing to the campaign of the next President (Dem, hopefully) would be a good way to get him on your side.

It's certainly doable, but it'll take a good deal more effort than just whining about the problem.

Your use of the term 'Gay Marriage' is highly offensive to the right wing homophobes who object to the word 'Gay' being hijacked. They insist that 'gay' still means 'cheerful' and will beligerently insist that homosexual couples call themselves 'Homosexual'.

So.

If marriage between two people with the same sort of genetalia is to be called 'Homosexual Marriage' will there, to be fair and equal, be 'Heterosexual Marriage' certificates, also?

You use the expression "teh government can't bow to their every whim". Oh yes, fine. Discriminating aginst someone, denying them equal rights under the law based on their sexual preference is okay, because a religious faction says so? That's not an example of a govenment bowing to the whim of one section of society??

Seperate church and state, and there is no reason that any person cannot choose any other person as their life partner. Every committed couple has equal standing under impartial law, I have heard no argument that provides a reason why this should not be, yet it isn't the case. The only reason for the discrimination is that an outspoken group of busybodies is using selected quotes from a highly unreliable and self contradictory 2000+ year old book to dictate what the law will be for all citizens of a nation regardless of their beliefs.

And you don't want the government to bow to the whims of a special interest group. Great. Don't let them bow. Let people 'marry' whom they choose and let the unions be civil, and let them have equal legal standing. Then the religious types can go have their union blessed by the shaman of thier choice as their spiritual beliefs dictate, but don't let one brand of spiritual beliefs be imposed on all.

The sad thing is that whining "it'll destroy religion and the family" seems to be nearly enough to stop it from being done. Ideally, a good understanding of equality and separation of church and state would be all the propaganda you need. Sigh.

The government really should change all its wording from marriage to civil union. That way all the religious fanatics would have to shut up about the whole "sanctity of mariage" or admit that they're simply prejudice.

Civil marriages and religious marriages really are seperate things. Gay people should have every right to have a civil marriage. And if simply changing all civil marriages to civil unions makes it possible, I don't see anything wrong with that. Civil Unions that don't give the same rights as Civil mariages are ridiculous and I'd be terribly pissed about them if I were gay.

Closer to the truth than one might think... Jed being a big hairy woman and all ;)

I agree whole-heartedly though... the idea that we are still considering all marriages in the US to be "under god" is ludicrous. In fact, my father has had 4 marriages now (scary, I know)... and only 1 of them wasn't held by a lawyer. Marriages are a civil contract between two people... an ability to provide for each other.

I would be willing to put money on the fact that if we allowed gay couples to have civil marriages nation-wide, their divorce rate would be significantly below that of straight people... we take vows of marriage for granted imho, divorce has almost become the fashionable norm, and yet the neo-cons must protect its "sanctity"... I'll tell ya, I always consider things that fail 50% of the time to be sacrosanct... for sure, lol.

Newsflash folks, when polled, over 60% of American Catholics (arguably the group that ties marriage and religion together most closely) said divorce and re-marriage within the church should be accepted... not exactly in keeping with the late JP2's teachings, is it?

Nothing would make the religious fanatics shut up ;P . If the Government did as you said, the fanatics would take it as Another Example of the Godless Liberals Taking Holiness Out of Their Government. *sigh*

There's just no pleasing them really. We should just invent a time machine and zap them back to 18th Century Puritan Theocracy. But I'd have more fun zapping them back to the Seat of Western Civilization, Ancient Greece. Now those guys were gay.

Maybe it's because I'm one of those "Godless liberals" but I think that taking god out of government would be a good thing.



*snicker*

Yeah, well, unfortunetly, it's those relgious fanatics that have control here.

I think the problem with those evil religious fanatics--well, besides the obvious--is that they do things too frelling fast! I barely have time to be shocked and pissed off before they've committed some other atrocity against liberty.

Ex:
First, they got schools to have a "moment of silence" during which you "can, but also cannot--but you can, really, go ahead--unless you don't want to" pray. They couldn't get a "moment of prayer" but they got a "moment of silence" to sneak in as much prayer as they could.
This was outrageous to me, an egregious attack on the separation of church and state, and I desteted everything about it.
But I only had a few weeks to be angry before they went on to legalize beating science teachers who discuss evolution, and now compared to that a moment of silence seems fine and dandy.

It's just like advertising, where they continue to push the envelope, and every time they find some new way to hawk their wares there's a big uproar and then everybody gets used to it. Human beings are too adaptable sometimes.

I'll bet the beginning of, say, Christianity was kinda like that.

"Hey, Vinny, guess what?"
"What, Herb?"
"There's a God in the sky and he's watching you so you better stop sleeping with my wife."
"What? That's crazy!"
"No, really, he's all-powerful and all-knowing."
"Are you sure? That sounds a little made-up to me..."
"Of course I'm sure! God loves you!"
"Huh. Well, I guess there is a God. Okay."
"Now, don't forget, you have to do everything I te--everything God tells you to do or you'll burn in hell forever."
"Wow, that sucks. Will God tell me personally what to do?"
"Uh, God only speaks through me."
"Okay. See you later, Herb."
"Bye.... Hey, Robert, guess what?"

:D It's a little difficult to talk with this tongue inside my cheek.

Not sure what I think about a school-wide moment of silence; but provisions should me made so that those who want to pray in school have the time and oppurtunity to do it; in the same way that there should be a prayer room and appropriate break times for Muslims to go and do their business in. That's not merging church and state - it's allowing freedom of conscience.

I was never offended by the moment of silence - I'd just gaze off into space and daydream for about 5 seconds before the announcements continued. I don't actually remember anyone using that time to pray, considering it was such a short time. The only time they really told us what to do with the time was when one of our special education students died, and they told the student body to keep him in our thoughts.

A moment of silence is only religious when people make it religous. If they have a moment of silence, for for the person to reflect on certain events, pary if you want to and maybe think about the hot chick in your science class. It last 1 minute and it's not like they are forcing you to think a certain way.

You'd have to ask Were; I specifically remember him citing one of the people involved in creating that all but saying, "This minute is for prayer".

And anyways, most people shouldn't need special time to pray. You should be able to find a spare moment by yourself--or *gasp* pray before you go to school. I know, what a concept, right?

True, but the point of a minute in a school is also probally made to show school respect, like a publicity stunt for a school, well less then that, just following in line really.