Our children deserve no less than a mother AND a father.

"When compared for fairness, most conclude the inequality is not valid and barriers should fall." This is not exactly true either. When presented to the voters, gay marriage has been defeated time and again. It is the judicial activism of the left which seeks to override the will of the people. Most people recognize the need for a contract which offers protections for gay couples. Why are you opposed to civil unions? Which specific rights do you think cannot not be negotiated under that construct?

It almost seems to me that we are approaching the issue from completely opposite directions: Government-sanctioned "marriage" is the means to stability and wealth vs. marriage as a bedrock institution being the means to stability and wealth, despite government intrusion. Your statement that the courts are color-blind is misleading. The courts have routinely supported social contracts which exclude or treat differently certain groups. See affirmative action, Title IX, even our current tax code for examples. You note that polygamy is not accepted, but by reason of your own arguments, the courts would have to accept polygamy, incest or any other hookup arrangement under the umbrella of "marriage".

One of my favorite quotes also, but we likely interpret it completely opposite. I suspect your issue is with who determines "good for you" while my issue is with "Big Government" coercion. Our definitions are very far apart. If I am reading you correctly, you believe marriage to be an evolving social mechanism to unite families, protect property and gain government perks. This all sounds very sterile to me, and lowers marriage to nothing but a legal contract. My view is that marriage itself is the spiritual expression of love, commitment and a desire to create a family. The licensing, property matters, tax perks and other issues are the original government intrusion for the purpose of "good for you".

Thanks Kevlar.

Our definitions of "marriage" seem very different. Society has a right to make a determination on what this definition is. (Society also has a duty to address the concerns of gay couples and set in place legal protections for them.) Diluting the definitions of "marriage, family, father/mother (and abortion for that matter)", etc. leads to a society that does not care what is best for it's children, but instead what is best for selfish adults. The author's example of Scandinavian countries bears this out.

and the challenges they would address of our current system. I suspect that they gay movement does not wish to craft this legislation partly because they do not believe that public opinion will support them in issues dealing with children. There will always be a third party involved, be it sperm donor or surrogate mother. My own opinion has little to do with the parenting abilities of gay individuals. My opinion is that all children deserve a mother and a father. Simple. Even my gay friends (and two gay brothers) love both their mothers and fathers. They bring very different skills and method to the table. Like it or not, men and women are different and contribute differently to the family dynamic.

GGG - while I disagree with you on this issue, I appreciate your patient and candid discussion focusing on the issue without name calling. It's refreshing. That said, marriage is merely an institution - of the church and of society. It is neither pro nor con on homosexuality. Many of the benefits that are bestowed upon a married couple were contracted with one man/ one woman in mind. Those benefits were also conferred with the intent of keeping the family unit intact, recognized by society as most beneficial to raising healthy, successful children. An argument can be made against some of the tax advantages etc. given to couples long after their children have left the nest. For this reason, I was anticipating the discussion of civil unions

It's not that the team performed flawlessly in 2008, it's that the voters were un- or mis- informed. The MSM did not vet O. They cheered him on like high school pep squads. His record is atrocious on all levels. Thanks to the Tea Party and a run around the MSM via internet, a much more informed, engaged electorate exists now. independents specifically have learned what many of us Conservatives knew 4 years ago. Their voting block helped usher O to the White House, they will see him out.

Great thought! Here's one not so great - is it true that residency is established after just two weeksn in WI? Maybe they are there to pad the union votes.....