OK, that is not where I was going but your concern is still valid.

Even so, the point that I was going for is that there is a second category in the first place. The fact of there being a second category is problematic from a legal stand point because it eventually is going to bring up some odd questions that arise only because someone did not think of them at the time the law was being written.

Note here that I am not primarily thinking of the canards raised by those opposed to gay marriage, like marrying a duck or whatever, although I will not rule that out. Really, if that possibility exists in any state law, then it is only a matter of time before someone realizes that he can move to a lower tax bracket by doing so.

Rather, I am asking if a straight couple can get a civil union because that would establish the idea as being on par with separate but equal status. If a straight couple cannot get civil unioned, then it is clearly a separation.

For example, when a person with a disability gets married, the state will recalculate the disability payments under the assumption that the spouse has a responsibility to provide. Well, that might sound reasonable when considered trivially. However, if that same couple decides to just live together, then they do not lose a source of income and the disabled spouse retains the free health insurance.

Now if two people who are both disabled get married, that just makes matters worse. Then both of them get treated as being a married individual and both of them lose a major portion of their benefits. In one case that I am aware of, the couple went to church and had a whole marriage except that the priest did not file the paperwork with the state. So they are married as far as the church is concerned but not married for legal reasons.

The above situations would exist apart from whether civil unions exist because of the way that government involves itself in the matter. However, in a legal climate that permits civil unions, would the disabled be able to get civil unioned to get the legal niceties of marriage and still keep their benefits? If they did, could they end up be tried for defrauding the state?

Oh, I think I see. You're suggesting that a church grants marriage, but the state grants a civil union. Is that it? I have no problem with that.

You missed it -- I said that was fine. Having an active night life would be a different thing than having multiple partners. An active night life (referring to going out dancing all the time to the inevitable detriment of your childrens' care) is a good reason for child services to take your children away.

Yeah, I know. One thing at a time. The objection on the table is to expanding civil union (as above) from one group (monogamous heterosexuals) to a second group (monogamous homosexuals). Let's get the first step before we move on to expand the system to anyone else.

I know you're just hitting me with hyperbole, but one step at a time. If civil union already exists for heterosexual couples, then by your argument of discrimination, you have no problem extending it to homosexual couples, right?

I think what EXC is saying is that we should call the religious rite "marriage" and the civil rite "civil union" for all people. He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but the only problem I see with that is an exacerbated problem between the religious and non-religious. "Marriage" would thus become a marker for those who decided to get God to settle the union (they would also need a civil union for legal purposes) and civil unions would be the legal status of what was formerly known as a married couple.

No shit.

The big difference would be that theists would have to pay twice: once for the civil union, and once for the marriage.

We could say "Marriage" and "Divine Union" -- maybe that would make more sense. The statistics would be pretty entertaining on that one, considering the current success of marriages (sorry, "divine unions" ).

You can marry your pet turtle if you want. Find a chuch and a minister to marry you, give you a marriage certificate. The only thing you shouldn't be able to do is get a 'marriage' certificate for the government. Why do people that want to marry their pet need a certificate that says marriage? Why do hetersexual or homosexuals need a certificate?

We have free speech you can call it whatever you want. I can call my lampshade my marriage partner and no one will arrest me for it. Why does anyone need a certificate issued by the government?

To the OP: Maybe because modern conservatism is often rooted in rural culture that values tradition and social continuity, and does not particularly appreciate change?  Also, I think the influence of propaganda against Communist is a real concern, but I think you could make a convincing argument that this could be boiled down to a urban vs. rural conflict, even though there are obviously exceptions.

To the thread derail:  Jesus H. Christ, let them get married.  These debates make me ill.  I understand you are coming at it from (what seems to be) a Libertarian perspective, but since Ron Paul will never be elected you can't deny people a basic American institution just because your Randian utopia has not yet been realized.  The current system of marriage is not going anywhere any time soon, and with that (correct) assumption, we should work within the system to do what is fair, and that means letting gay people behave like American citizens instead of treating them like amoral potential child molesters and terrorists.

I know what you are saying, but separate but equal is not the same as equal, and I don't see any moral, legal or technical reason to not just do it right in the first place.  I mean, eventually this stuff will pass no matter what people vote for today, probably in twenty years there won't be more than a handful of states fighting it, but that does not mean we should just wait for it to happen.  For me, this really is a civil rights issue based on an idea of morality that is based on fear of homosexuality, even if conservatives are trying to rationalize it as something different.  I just don't see the logic in most of the arguments against it.

But there is no reason the word 'marriage' must be used. It's used as a way to discriminate against single people. It's like when they call something "an act of God", there is no reason this terminology must be used.

I never said I hated anyone. I also have no idea why you brought up the Klan. I don't know how I misrepresented you arguing a "separate but equal" position, other than showing people making the exact same argument around 50 years ago.

I didn't stereotype either. I am simply being observant to what is going on in this thread. You want to argue that gays should live with terms separate but equal, and I am pointing out the argument from the past to show how obviously ridiculous that is.

There is no such thing as "separate but equal". I shouldn't of even had to make that point.