In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:55 PM
Tinsldr2, for man/man committment, how about the term 'civil partnership'?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:38 PM
Why? We have a perfectly good word

Think of the thousands of places the law would need to be changed forms that would need to be amended etc
Look at tax form adding mArried filling jointly or partnered filling jointly?

If in all things it is the same LEGaLLY then simplify and call it the same
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:56 PM
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,"
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Sir Elton John
KevNC Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:04 PM
He said those things four years ago. Over the past year, he has been involved with getting gay marriage legalized.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...