In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

Davis: "From rights of survivorship to hospital visitation, there are matters of basic decency which can be settled in law without redefining marriage at its root." Davis comes closer to objectivity than do most people with an instinctive revulsion to Gay/Lesbian marriage, he deserves explicit recognition for that. But with the above statement he dimisses the entire long sordid history of the less-than-equal protection under the law under which LGBT people have lived in this country. YES, they are matters of basic decency, but NO, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that in fact WE CANNOT settle these matters in law no matter how we try, regardless of what we do or do not do with the definition of marriage.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:24 PM
In fact, many of us move in precisely the opposite direction and enshrine laws like DOMA that perpetuate such inequalities no matter what name is assigned to LGBT relationships.

Ms. Gingrich-Cushman's column of yesterday made a lot so sense. But after decade upon decade of disappointment with such avenues as "Civil Unions" which do not provide Equality, I cannot blame LGBT people for pursuing the avenue of expanding the Civil sense of the word 'Marriage' to encompass two individuals of any gender.

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...