I'm of the view that the government should not be involved in the licensing of marriage for anyone - gay or straight.  The government shouldn't have that type of control or power over people.  Boy, I'm starting to sound like a conservative. 

Marriage isn't between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and woman - and it is all of those things.  It is a religious/social institution.  People individually decide what constitutes marriage - it is whatever you think it is. 

Governments should not regulate human behaviors that don't harm or directly impact other humans. 

My solution is simple.  Instead of sanctioning gay marriage, stop sanctioning marriage all-together.  If you then have a problem with gay-marriage take it up with the church, not the government.

That's exactly the same conclusion my partner at home came to.

woefully impractical.  Hate to sound all lawyerlike here, but the reason for licensing of marriage is to have a shorthand determination of things like intestate succession, survivor benefits, insurance coverage, legitimation of offspring, and other innumerable benefits which flow from the marital relationship.  Assume for instance, that a couple marries, has children, acquires a home and other property, and then splits up.  Without the fact of the marriage and its easy to determine start date how do you divide the property equitably?  Modern equitable distribution and support laws take into account the spouses' non-monetary contributions, and consider all income and property acquired during the marriage to be part of the marital estate.  Without this legal status couples can (and do) get together, sometimes for years, and then grow apart or one of them dies, and a person who may have devoted her life to her man for 20 years may find herself with nothing for her efforts.  There has to be a baseline against which to measure things like survivors benefits and property interests.

That being said I cannot understand why such a benefit cannot be extended to gay couples, either through marriage or through civil unions.  When you come right down to it the civil end of marriage is just that -- a civil entity statutorily defined by the state.  There's nothing holy or sanctified about it.  It's just bidness and the state does not concern itself over whether the parties love each other, can have children, or believe that their marriage is infused with holiness.

Marriage on the civil side of things is for practical purposes - and a legal contract.  I don't think most evangelicals are as concerned about the legal matter as they are of preserving their sacrisanct definition of marriage.  Just give them their stupid word back and this problem may go away.

The key is for the state to stop referring to these civil arrangements as marriage.  The legal points would still stand, and others would be able to enter into "domestic contracts" or whatever the political winds decide to call it.

But really, isn't this wedge issue a huge distraction from more important issues?  Yes there are problems with the law when it comes to civil unions/gay marriage/whatever but in the scheme of things should the country get mired in this issue now?

My view is that we need to get the country back on track and then revisit the wedge issues at a later time.  I'm OK with the status quo on the wedge issues if it means the government isn't spending our children's money, engaging in protracted wars over lies, and allowing millions of jobs to go overseas.  There is a time to stick to your guns and there is a time for compromise.  Right now we need to drop the wedge issues and fix our country.

And that is coming from a former activist on some of these issues.  When your house is burning down, you don't worry about what color of paint to use in the kitchen - you worry about putting out the flames.  Right now, our house is on fire. 

I've had this discussion many times with gay and lesbian friends.  I believe they should steer totally clear of the M word and just agitate for civil unions.  And you're right.  First things first.