quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

 
This not a matter of "separate but equal".  This is a matter of going around the religious aspects of the word and simply creating the opportunity for civil unions that bestow all the same rights and protections, as well as the responsibilities and consequences of the traditionally married couple.  Same tax benefits, same rights to speak for a partner in medical emergencies, same right to adopt, yada, yada, yada.  I also stated quite clearly that I think it should be called a civil union or something similar if a hetero couple chooses to be married in a civil cermony rather than a religious one.  *shrug*
"Marriage" licenses, since that is a civil matter, could be renamed to remove the word marriage completely.  Marriages, if that is what the couple chooses, happen in a church involving God and "til death do we part" as opposed to in a garden and "as long as we both shall love". 
Get your legal requirements out of the way, and then have the appropriate ceremony.  Who really cares! 
My opinion only, but removing the word marriage from this fight would take the wind out of the sails of the main objection.  Then we can get down to the nitty gritty and, if necessary make the response:  "Oh, I see, you don't want anyone who is not in a heterosexual relationship to be together in any legal way at all.  Well tough titties...this is a civil matter...not a religious matter." 
JMO, of course.
As to poly:  Well, I am probably not of the norm there either.  I think it is nobody's business, as long as it is consensual.  But then I live in a state where Warren Jeffs is in jail and pending trial for reasons other that go far beyond polygamous relationships.  We pretty much leave the people in Colorado City alone, unless there are abuses and someone calls the authorities in.   
So legally, I have no objection to them having as many civil unions as they want.  Just register each one!

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

~FR~  I hope that everyone will not misunderstand Me.  I know the basis upon which this fight continues.  I believe that this will be challenged yet again and go to ballot.  I am puzzled, admittedly over the fact that Cali, as much of a liberal state it claims to be, would have had a significant refusal for this passed by a vote of the people.
I am simply suggesting a roundabout way to avoid all the drama, while affording the opportunity for something like a "civil union" with the exact same rights and protections for any and all.
Sometimes one should choose their battles, and this is one that is continually lost and causes divisiveness and resentment.  (I do not relate to the reason for this upset, but...*Shrug*)  Is the word worth the continual aggravation?
I am not trying to state that I am opposed or not opposed.  I am just trying to throw out a suggestion for a practical alternative that provides the opportunity for those left out now to achieve what they want and need.
In the end it is not up to Me to judge. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
eventually a SCOTUS will rule and gay marriage will be allowed everywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinkbound

I see no reason why some people should be allowed to marry, while others aren't.

Nevertheless, I wonder how many people marry as a proclamation of love and commitment, as opposed to tax advantages, health insurance advantages, or other perceived advantages.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
eventually a SCOTUS will rule and gay marriage will be allowed everywhere.

      Yes.  And that methodology certainly put an end to the controversy over abortion...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Who cares about the controversy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Who cares about the controversy?

         Now there is that authoritarian/totalitarian, "we'll just make them think right" streak of modern liberalism rearing it's head. 

    The struggle for gay rights isn't only fought on one front.  If such a sweeping decree is imposed on the legal front, we would have to expect a significant backlash on the social side.  Not only from the bigots, but from those who resent gov't issuing such dictates.  Any politician who has to seek office in such a climate is damn well going to care about that controversy.  Look at the role the abortion issue has played in national politics from the Reagan years, right through today.  How many seats in Congress have swung to the Republican on that?


     I don't want to put myself in the position of saying the GLBT community should just settle for scraps.  There are fundamental rights at stake here.  Who makes critical medical decisions?  Who gets the body if someone dies?  A gay couple in a committed lifetime partnership deserve exactly the same legal recognition a hetero couple would expect.  I don't care about the verbiage, but if they do, so be it.

   But I think a 14th ruling from SCOTUS is the wrong tactic in the bigger goal.  Doing it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause would achieve the same thing, but leave a measure of State control to discourage consolidation of the bigots.  It is a compromise, but it allows the social front of the struggle to catch up, for a better end result, sooner.