I just wanted to day that I agree wholeheartedly with everything R.A. Earl said in post 33617. 

Gov’t needs to get out of the marriage business and leave that to the religious organizations.

Not quite there yet, but a step in the right direction.

Anti-slavery took time too, but when it finally took hold, it happened very quickly.

I think “partnered with” is a term which implies a more egalitarian relationship than does “married to” which, to me, carries with it a nuance of subservience or ownership, especially as it applies to the “wife” in heterosexual unions.

I also think that many, if not most, heterosexuals have trouble dealing with the blurred roles that occur in a same-sex relationship. All most heteros know is heterosexuality… the man is the “husband” and the woman, the “wife.” Each term is LOADED with role expectations which vary with the culture and times. The fact that in many, if not most, same-sex relationships there are no such roles just “blows their hetero minds” and invalidates the relationship.

Gay and lesbian people weren’t born on another planet… they too have been conditioned to expect to play a role in a relationship based on their gender. When they discover their natures don’t allow them to fulfil the expected role most are as confused as the society around them. Since there’s no arguing against their same-sex feelings - i.e. males for males, females for females - any more than there’s no arguing heterosexual feelings/leanings/preferences, gays and lesbians must find some way to resolve the situation themselves - society sure hasn’t yet matured enough to help.

Some choose to commit suicide. Fortunately many more find a way to jettison their conditioning to make way for the creative construction of a unique same-sex relationship that suits the two people in question. If society can’t handle that, tough beans.

This is the long way around to state that I think if the more conservative thinkers (if that’s not an oxymoron) cannot find a way to accept that gays and lesbians can be partnered using the term “marriage,” then the term should be deemed a religious one ONLY, and have no legal standing or effect. In other words, NEITHER hetero nor homo “marriages” would be recognized as having legal force or effect.

For any two people to have legal standing as a couple, they must hold an official and valid certificate of “union” issued by civil authority. A “marriage” certificate would then be optional, issued ONLY by a religious or similar organization, and have NO MORE LEGAL STANDING than a certificate of baptism or confirmation.

Works for me.

I wonder how much longer same-sex couples will be denied these basic human rights in other states?