I don't care whether it is called marriage or civil unions but whatever it is called I think the same benefits should be extended to heterosexual and homosexual couples.  Traditionally marriage has mainly about making it easier to exchange property.  Look at what marriages were done for in medival times, often they were done to signify a truce between two warring parties or to combine kingdoms, etc.  Love was no where in the equation.  So why not allow the same to happen today, allow a couple to join together in a union so that they can file joint taxes, have medical power of attorney in the case of their partner getting ill, etc.

Those who are concerned that allowing homosexuals to get "married" means that the various religious institutions would have to recognize the relationship need not be concerned.  Just like a catholic priest can refuse to officiate over a wedding involving any non-catholics he can also refuse to officiate over a homosexual wedding. 

There is a religious (or maybe not so religious) event when two people promise to be together before their god  and/or their friends.  That's a marriage.

Separately . .there could be a contract designed to confer rights, privileges, and a framework for child protection.  That's a civil union.

I think that the second one is the government's business at all levels and the first is not.  And I think that people should be able to do one or the other or both and get the seperate benefits as they apply.

marriage is a religious institute, civil union contracts should be open ot anyone of any gender, and espouse equal benefits, which is, none at all whatsoever; but if you have to give some privilages, they should apply to gays as well... but not by redifining marriage, but by revising the laws to give equal rights to civil unions.

In fact, stop tracking marriages alltogether. Leave it for the church, have states ONLY track civil unions (married hetrosexuals can be civil unioned... or they can choose not to register with the state)

But currently marriage does provide benefits.  Married couples are allowed to file taxes jointly, spouses are the medical proxy in the event that one is incapacitated, upon death the spouse automatically inherits the estate, etc.  Those same benefits should be extended to same sex couples.

Speaking strictly on the economic impact to couples, didn't Joe Biden state that it was patriotic to pay more taxes? Isn't this a good time for homosexuals, who probably on average support Democrats far more than Republicans, to be the uber patriotic of their party? Isn't the goal to redistribute the wealth? Sounds like evil capitalism at work to me. They are not being team players.

Which is what I said in the same sentence. I said that if you MUST extend benefits to married couples they should also be given to civil unioned couples... right there, same sentence.

This reminds me... the absurdity of kicking gays out of the military is that it is perfectly acceptable for straight men to die for their country, but we don't want any homosexuals on the front lines? I guess its more of the fear that they might weaponize a threatening group... it would be hard to set up concentration camps when a general and a sizeable portion of the chain of command is meant to go there.

Of course that just requires the extra step of firing them a few years in advance... hitler showed how you can do it one step at a time...

BTW... how come its acceptable now for a man to have another man as a wife, but not have two wives? I want two wives dammit!

But nooooo...

The satan has won another battle in his war against the family.

[quote]I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)[/quote]

Same gender 'marriage' is absurd.

Why is it so absurd for two people who love each other to want to make a life-long commitment to one another?  Same sex marriage is no more absurd than opposite sex marriage.

Are we still arguing over words like marriage?

It's great that people aren't homophobic, just sticklers for semantics.

~Zoo

Without something to back up your assertion it's wasted typing.

Put me on the side of Lula and Ted.  Same gender marriage is absurd. 

We have five thousand years of recorded history and we find that every civilization in the history of the world has been built upon the pillar of marriage and family. 

I know, I know, we, as Christians, are seen as narrow minded...... but face it marriage has been the bedrock of culture in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and Australia. 

The ancient civilizations where homosexuality flourished?  Well, ummmm they didn't make the cut.  Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece and Rome fell  or were destroyed because of such sexual pervision. 

The institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social order.  Everything valuable sits upon that base.  Institutions, governments, religion and welfare of children are all dependent on its stability.  What we are doing today is wobbling the foundation.I believe many of our social problems can be traced to the instability of marriage whether it be by liberal lawmakers, money makers in the entertainment industry, radical feminism or homosexual marriage.  This whole homosexual marriage debate is just another in the line to put fuel on the fire as we watch the sanctity of marriage burn. 

Like Ted said, it's just another attack against marriage.  The way it's been battered I'm thinking it's sure to fall anytime soon.