Centerfield

I agree the the semantics would make a difference -- at least with me. I would accept legally supporting civil unions that would provide the legal and medical benefits that are the real issue for gays. I would not support marriage for gays.

My wife and I had separate civil and religious marriage ceremonies. We were first married by a Justice of the Peace, who happens to be my mother-in-law. About 6 months later, we had a Jewish ceremony conducted by a rabbi.

This distinction between civil and religious marriage may already be in the law. There may be some way to emphasize it that would be helpful in this debate.

I think Yglesias makes some decent points, but misinterprets the polls he is using as the basis for the first part of the snippet here. The polls' possible responses were whether gay marriage would "change our society for the worse/better/no change". The response that gay marriage would have no real effect on our society is a far cry from saying "I don't care whether gay marriage is allowed or not." I would have responded that allowing gay marriage would have little effect on society, yet I strongly support allowing same sex marriage. It is probably what will prevent me from voting for most GOP candidates next fall (including GWB).

The use of semantics will only get the GOP so far, because the conservative base will make hay with any advancement toward equal treatment of gay people. People with nothing better to do than worry about what others do with their private parts, I guess.

"Gay-friendly" indeed.

I just believe that (1) it is no one else's business what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults, and (2) every citizen of the United States should be afforded equal opportunity under the law.

Is that apathetic? I don't think so -- I believe that quite strongly.

It seems to me that the Republicans are all for less regulation when it has to do with corporate governance, health and safety, environmental issues, and things that affect the entire society. But when it comes to what you and I do in the privacy of our own homes, they're all about regulation.

9/11 changed a lot of minds about security, and the need to take real anti-terror measures where terrorists & their supporters are based. A big, significant change.

AIDS has changed fewer minds, but strengthened the anti-gay folk -- most of whom are anti-promiscuity, anti-divorce, anti-pornography, anti-abortion; most also don't like the idea of gay couples adopting young boys.

Sorry, when what you do in the bedroom means, 6 months later, the brains have to be sucked out of the head of an unborn baby, there IS a legitimate social interest.

Ever see moving pictures of a partial-birth abortion? How about HUGE photos of the reality? They're coming; you won't like it when co-eds get grossed out at pictures of the truth.

Marriage has long been defined as a union of a man and a women -- the Mormons in Utah were essentially forced to give up many women in order to join the US.

The fact that most feel there are too many divorces, and far too many adulterous affairs, means modern marriage is already a weakened institution. Andrew Sullivan's excellent arguments notwithstanding, many feel accepting same-sex marriages is too much more weakening of an institution nobody knows how to strengthen.

Legal, civil unions seems an excellent 3/4 step to get most of the legal beneficiary/ life-decision making issues more clarified, without full "marriage" acceptance. And civil unions without the marriage allows easy discrimination against unions adopting children; I like civil unions for now.

Anti-West terrorists look at US radical feminism as justification for their fight against such evils; the negative aspects of greater individual freedom. And, obviously, once gay marriage is accepted in the US, it will be forced as a "human right" at the UN, then forced onto other cultures; it should be no surprise that cultures have many who are strongly opposed, and feel a need to fight to protect their (backward) culture.