First off lose the "civil marriage" terminology and go with "civil union" and 95% of all your problems will go away. Marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been, and from the looks of the feelings of the majority of Americans, it will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Stop throwing the word hate around to describe someone who disagrees with your premise. I don't hate you, I don't think you are going to burn in hell, but I do think that the gay community demands things that the straight community has never had in terms of benefits. Sorry, I don't think you should be able to adopt, I don't think you were born that way, but I do think environment probably did play a role.

I work for major multinational corporation, and they granted full benefits to same sex partners who have cohabitated for 6 months or more. If you are straight, sorry, you don't get those benefits. Two faced and wrong. A civil union demonstrates commitment, and is what should be implemented, be you straight or gay if your are anti-religion or feel demeaned by the term marriage.

The "don't ask, don't tell" was a stupid policy but here is the question posed in a mathmatical form. "A" is sexually disposed to be aroused by "B". In a military situation and space is limited, what is the sleeping, showering, living arrangement that minimizes issues. If your answer is that gays and straights should all be put in together, then completely eliminate segregated housing for men and women and make one barracks. Think about it.

The military's job is not to be a petri dish for gender experimentation, it's job is to "break things and kill people" (stolen from Rush Limbaugh).

Many of the issues that are meantioned like power of attorney, decisions regarding medical treatment in the event one partner is incapacitated, property rights, etc are all easily settled as many other Americans settle them, by obtaining the legal forms; most are free on the internet; getting them witnessed signed and notarized by both parties. Problem solved.

Congratulations to these people on their eleven years together and I wish them many more.

Governments enjoy the privilege being able to encourage the behaviors it wishes its citizens to demonstrate and to discourage those it wishes its citizens to avoid.

The home interest mortgage deduction encourages home ownership, which encourages saving as well as community stability. The government similarly uses the benefits of marriage to encourage a man and a woman to rear children. (Even the government knows it needs future taxpayers.) It's not always done a particularly good job of that (see: marriage penalty), but the government still reserves that right to determine who receives what privileges.

And let's rememeber marriage is a privilege the government permits us, and not uniformly or willy-nilly. You can't marry a blood relative, or often step-relatives. You can't marry more than one person. You can't marry someone under the age of consent.

Why is the fact that you can't marry someone of the same gender such an issue? Because if the government condones -- no, not condones, encourages -- such behavior by providing incentives for it, then all of us must approve of it. And let's be honest -- the pink wing of America doesn't want tolerance, they want approval. They're here, they're queer, I'm used to it. Tolerance they have -- approval, at least mine, I don't think they'll be receiving anytime soon.

Good points, but I take the tact that marriage is not so much a blessing granted by government, it is a pact before............look out.............here it comes..........get ready to groan.........I'm gonna say it.............GOD. Cat's out of the bag, you can officially label me a right wing religious zealot.

Government's policy hasn't stopped people from being gay or having long term relationships, it hasn't stopped them from buying homes together and claiming the $250,000/person tax deduction, it has stopped them from filing joint returns, which like you said, stopped them from experiencing the marriage tax and saved them money. There are issues but I take it that they are trying to swat a fly with a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood. Massive overkill.

Without sounding extreme, I always thought the gay community should have teamed up with the Mormon community, and completely fought to throw out the standard definition of marriage. The Mormon's would legally be able to have multiple wives, and you could marry whomever you choose and how many of each that you choose. Marriage's basis is religious. Polygamy has a Biblical basis, although I don't know why I say this as I can't afford the one I've got. ha ha

This train has left the station and there is no stopping it. It makes no difference what the American people say, the liberal judges will just make it happen.

Those honestly concerned about the sanctity of marriage believe what they do because of the religious underpinning of their beliefs about marriage. Marriage IS a religious institution that has been somewhat co-opted by the government.

Contrary to what Jughead believes, I don't think the government reserves, and in any case, doesn't deserve, the right to discourage any behavior that does not deny others of the rights specified in the constitution. The government has no rights other than those spelled out in the Constitution and those that we grant it.

Marriage should not be recognized by the government in any form - tax breaks or tax penalties. In fact, as a religious institution, the government should be prohibited from endorsing any form of it. Civil unions, entered into by legally binding contract, should be the only thing the government recognizes.

Nobody would be stopping people who want the Church's blessing, and yes, God's, if that is what they believe, from going through a marriage ceremony in celebration of entering such an arrangement. Those who don't care about such things would not be required to go through such a ceremony - as it is now.

The government's role should be reduced to that of the courts enforcing the rules of a legally binding contract that two parties willingly agreed to enter into and to guarantee the constitutional rights of the children that had no say in that contract.

The two responses you use are perfect examples of where the left went wrong. Many voters across the spectrum of values,ethics, and affiliations came together to put America FIRST. Until the Libs get that they will continue to slide down the slope into the pit of irrelevance. Freedom to be who you are does not mean I have to like it or accept it, just don't make me accept it.

Whether or not the government should have the right to reward or discourage behavior, they do. Government should reflect the will of the people and the society of those people within limits. The custom of the religious marriage also being a civil one definitely butts up against the First Amendment, but by recognizing all faiths' weddings equally, doesn't actually break it.

Of course, if we as a society got rid of no-fault divorce and reintroduced a great deal of gravity back into the institution of marriage, I don't think being married would hold nearly the appeal of gays and straights alike. If a divorce could only be granted for cause -- say, adultery, or criminal acts committed against the spouse or others -- them marriage should be rewarded for the stability it would bring to families.

The government doesn't seem to think much of Mormon marriages involving polygamy...