Poppycock. The right wing hates Gay Americans, or you wouldn't have banned Civil Unions / Domestic Partners in 21 states, and fought against them tooth and nail in the states that have them. Your intolerance forced the debate to become Marriage Equality for same sex couples and nothing else because you have shown that you have no respect or tolerance for Gay and Lesbian Americans.

This essay is one of the more bizarre stories from the anti-Gay industry. Cushman does not understand the separation of Church and state if she thinks Civil Marriage for same-sex couples poses any risk for her Church. Her church is in no more danger than from an atheist heterosexual couple. Further, civil unions are not a global concept, and she would create horrendous problems for every couple that leaves the US on business or vacation, or has any foreign investments.

You ask: 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. This is exactly why legal marriage is necessary, because basic decency has been violated continuously against same sex couples. And letting same-sex couples wed does not redefine marraige at its root. Marriage remains a personal contract between two unrelated persons which establishes kinship. The state is interested in this because marriage stabilizes society, and provides security for the members of the family - the couple, any childen they bear, adopt or bring in from a prior marriage.

Adultery and murder harm others. Marriage of same-sex couple harms no one, and stabilizes society. That is why marriage equality is both good, and inevitable.

Actually, your side forced the marriage only debate on the Gay community. 20 of the 30 amendments banning marriage equality also ban civil unions. Two of these also ban private contracts. This shows your side is intentionally Gay bashing, with no desire to limit "traditional" marriage to opposite sex couples. If you had support Civil Unions that provided legal equality 10 years ago, you probably would have won the debate.

Sexual behavior may change, but not instrinsic orientation.

Like Michael Jackson?

Jacoby and NOM fail basic logic. They can't explain why marriage should be denied to same-sex couples raising children, but is allowed for elderly (infertile) couples to encourage domestic stability and love. Want to know why? Marriage historically was an economic transaction, where a woman was sold from her father or brother, to the father of the groom, who allowed his son to marry the woman. In more modern times, it has required the implicit consent of the couple, but the structure of the ceremony in most cases ("Who giveth this woman?") is still handing over the woman as property to her husband. None of your arguments make any sense in a legal system that values individuals.

And yet, the GOP screams bloody murder when liberals sue against the death penalty. You can't call yourself prolife unless you oppose the death penalty with the same fervor as you oppose abortion.

The Unions. The people who brought you the weekend. Shedlock would take teachers and other workers back to sweatshops. We need a balance between union and management, but the decline in the union movement is bad for all workers.