NEWS: Live Free Or Gay

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

Cant say I could agree more and if I said I agreed less, I'd be lying. I said before that it stings a bit that the terminology is different because it continues the seperate but equal mindset. But something is always better than nothing. Not to say that we should settle for less, but take what we can and keep trying for more.

Prior to domestic partnerships and civil unions, there have been ways to attain a good majority of the protections and obligations of marriage. While marriage or civil unions create those protections with one legally binding agreement, couples would have to go through legal actions and contracts (i.e.- power of attorney for this, that, and a ton of other things) for each and every desired right.
Really, the only thing the term marriage itself would create would be a commonly understood relationship. For someone who may not be familiar with LGBTQ community or issues, they may not have the slightest clue what a person means when they say that they have entered into a civil union. I don't think that trying to attain the term "marriage" has as much to do with the religious aspect of it as it does the general understanding of what that word represents in a relationship.

I could not agree more.

I think I may need to clarify something. I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. Quite the opposite, actually, and can freely admit that I, by no means, know all there is to know on the subject at hand. Sometimes I just have a difficult time saying (or typing) what it is exactly that is running through my head. This being discussion being one of said times.
Really, overall, what I've been trying to say is that, though it may be/have been RIDICULOUSLY difficult, some protections of marriage are/have been available to same-sex couples, that civil unions being made available to same-sex couples is a major victory, and that the reason behind my issue with not being able to use the term married is that the life time commitment i may make to another woman at some point in time be diminished or taken less seriously because it lacks the weight the word marriage carries. Then again, if marriage itself was done away with, as you mentioned, we could both be happy.

(off topic after thought - if there was a contest for run-on sentences, i might just have to enter it.)

huh. now that it's been pointed out, it makes perfect sense that the LGBTQ (thank god for copy/paste, i'd have never been able to write that out from memory) population is trying to figure out what to call themselves. name is a big part of identity, and all that. but it really never occurred to me that the different appellations might have different connotations, except maybe that some of them would be viewed as insulting and some wouldn't. feel like giving the unenlightened a nickel tour of who prefers to be called what?

With all due respect, I think this position is even more dangerous politically than advocating for gay marriage outright. I can almost see Rush and Hannity salivating at the thought of a leftist "abolish marriage outright" movement. Even though it makes logical and practical sense, if we're talking brass tacks it would be political disaster.

well, it's to be expected that there's a disconnect anytime one tries to discuss both sense and politics.