Gay Couples Say Civil Unions Aren’t Enough

[JackBeck]

By ALISON LEIGH COWAN
Published: March 17, 2008

Eager to celebrate their partnership, Tracy and Katy Weber Tierney were among the first in line when Connecticut created civil unions three years ago as a way to formalize same-sex relationships without using the word “marriage.”

Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times
Brad Eaton, left, and Michael Limone. In deciding to tell an employer he was in a civil union, Mr. Limone said, “I’m sitting across from this person and now I’ve got to come out to this person.”
But when Tracy was giving birth to their son, Jake, five months ago, a hospital employee inquired whether she was “married, single, divorced or widowed.”

“I’m in a civil union,” she replied. When the employee checked “single,” Tracy protested. “I’m actually more married than single,” she said, leaving the employee flustered about how to proceed.

(snip)

Civil unions require constant “haggling, litigation and explanation,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder of a New York-based advocacy group called Freedom to Marry. Being married, he said, means “you don’t have to fumble for documents. You don’t have to hire an attorney, and you don’t have to consult a dictionary. You’re married. You know what it means, and everyone else knows what it means.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/nyregion/17samesex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=nyregion

I recently went through something similar at the doctors office. I left my marital status blank since there wasn't any box to check for "Domestic Partner" or "Civil Union". When this was questioned by receptionist, I explained that none of them applied to me. Domestic partnership laws will be 10 years old this July. These are but some of the more mundane examples of why there needs to be marriage equality, and not separate classes created to define an adult relationship.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. it isn't enough, as a du'er once said ' i want to ram the M word down their throats"

and i dont care that it makes them uncomfortable.

[JackBeck]

5. I never understood the meme about ramming our lifestyle down others throats.

delete.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. actually what he said was we would have more success if we didnt ram the M word down peoples throat

to which i said, that i want to ram the M word down someones throat. :crazy:

sorry i am being incoherent, exams and such

:hi:

[JackBeck]

16. So you're the DUer I agree with.

Now I see. No prob. Good luck with the exams.

[msongs]

2. but Obama's bible says marriage is only between man and woman so get over it? nt

[kevinbgoode]

6. And what does Hillary and McSame's bible tell us?

[mondo joe]

20. What any of their bible's say doesn't matter nearly as much as what they say as a matter of

policy.

[MrScorpio]

3. Civil Unions are a cop out

Marriage all the way

[MaryCeleste]

8. Actually they should be the standard...for all couples

Marriage is a religious thing. The state should have no interest in it. I don't care what people do in their religious practice (within some broad limits), but the state should only care about registered partnerships.

[JackBeck]

12. Marriage extends beyond the state.

It's also federal.

Marriage is not a religious thing. Ask anyone who has gotten married at city hall.

[mondo joe]

15. Religious marriage is a religiousthing. There's nothing religious about civil marriage

unless you put it there.

[MaryCeleste]

19. My argument is to make the only partnering civil so the religious can do their own thing

France does it a lot like that.

[mondo joe]

22. It's no different than what we have now, for all practical purposes.

State marriage is not religious.

If you want to muck it up with a church that's optional.

It seems pure semantics to me.

[electron_blue]

58. but...even ifyou have no religious ceremony, and are atheists, being married

still gives you more rights than a civil union. Civil unions should be replaced by civil marriages, take the religion all the way out. The state marriage laws should have nothing to do with religion, but they do.

[mondo joe]

60. I don't think state marriage has anything to do with religion at all.

[electron_blue]

61. Well they do because you're not allowed to get married if you're of the same sex and

this is from religious roots.

[mondo joe]

63. But the state marriage itself is not religious. Even if you change the name it

would still meet the same opposition.

[KittyWampus]

26. the word marriage has connotations. To willfully pretend it doesn't makes it apparent you DO care

about semantics and you do really want to shove the reality of gay partnerships into the faces of the bigots.

It isn't just about securing equal rights.

It's getting 'revenge'.

The word marriage does have religious meaning to MOST Americans.

Scrapping the term in favor of Civil Unions totally defuses the entire issue.

And CIVIL points to the very nature of the contract.

[mondo joe]

31. Your psychic powers, as usual, fail you.

And you long ago established that you don't give much of a shit about gay people.

[KittyWampus]

33. you just proved, in the previous post you ARE playing semantics while pretending you're not.

So tell us, why are you?

Why do you need to cling to the word "marriage"?

When "Civil" defines the relationship much better?

And yeah, having been married to a gay man and lived with he and his partner for 8+ years... I'd say I care plenty about gay issues.

A large portion of my life revolved around the marriage law as it exists.

[JackBeck]

36. Where are the grassroots organizations

trying to overturn our federal and state laws on marriage, making all marriages civil unions?

[mondo joe]

41. Answers to ridiculous questions:

"Why do you need to cling to the word "marriage"?"

Answer: I don't need to. But there is nothing gained by a fool's errand to abandon it. People will not willingly surrender it, and we don't need an unecessary battle. Furthermore, even if it miraculously happened, the same people who oppose marriage for same sex couples will oppose this newly named thing because they don't want ANY legal recognition of same sex couples.

"And yeah, having been married to a gay man and lived with he and his partner for 8 years... I'd say I care plenty about gay issues."

Having been a gay person for 43 years, abd lived with a partner for nearly 20, I can attest that your concern is lacking.

[JackBeck]

57. Exactly.

Who's going to try and convince the whole country to overturn their marriage and make it a civil union?

[Toasterlad]

77. Did You Even READ the OP?

It's precisely because civil unions are not marriage that they are ineffective. There are still rights guaranteed to married heterosexuals in every state in America, that are not guaranteed in even the most comprehensive civil union law.

Sorry if you feel our "revenge" is petty and ill-advised, but I'd rather not have to call my lawyer to see my husband in the hospital, if it's all the same to you.

Wow. I'm REMARKABLY tolerant today. Wonder how long that'll last...?

[JackBeck]

32. "Revenge"? n/t

[KittyWampus]

35. Want to explain any other motive for insisting on using the word "marriage"? When "civil"

would move the ball forward?

What is more important, securing equal rights for all or the word marriage?

If using the word marriage is more important, please explain why?

In practical terms, not some abstract attempt at rationalization.

[mondo joe]

42. Because your cockeyed scheme is as unrealistic as your creationism.

We don't need you to tell us what our struggle is.

[Chovexani]

93. Looks like I have them on ignore for good reason.

[gollygee]

40. How do you know the word "marriage" has religious meaning to most Americans?

Has someone done a survey on that?

I'm married and it wasn't a religious ceremony. It's a civil marriage. I don't see anything religious at all about that word and I'm always surprised when people believe so strongly that it is religious.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. Getting married at city hall is marriage.

In fact, getting married by clergy isn't a recognized civil marriage until it's filed as such. People who think the word marriage has only a religious meaning shouldn't bother getting a marriage license from the municipal authorities and see how well that works when it comes to contracts, taxes, hospital visitations, etc. Getting married at city hall isn't a religious marriage. The two are wholly separate, and the word has been used this way for eons.

Scrapping the term marriage in favor of "civil unions" has created this weird hybrid creature that isn't exactly the same as marriage and isn't the same as being single. That's just not enough.

[NMMNG]

82. Right

That's why atheists and other non-religious people are forbidden by law to get married.

Try again.

[TommyO]

30. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion.

It is a completely separate from the religious recognition of a couple's partnership.

[Book Lover]

55. I have never been convinced by this argument

Marriage is not only a religious thing. Marriage is the single word, of long lineage, that indicates the highest commitment two people have for each other. Why invent a new term to appease those who refuse to recognize the marriages (actual if not necessarily legal) of GLBT people? I am an atheist and I resent being told that I am not married, which is the logical extension of your argument.

[MaryCeleste]

95. Consider this...

We only allow civil unions to be binding legally. Whatever rights associated with it are the same for all couples. That addresses the GLBT marriage issue. If anyone wants to do a church or religious thing, that is up to them.

I will gladly give up the word marriage if it gets us off the hard point where we are now. I would guess that your relationship is tied to one word, any more than mine was.

[mondo joe]

96. You may be willing to give up with word marriage, but there is no reason to think that's

true broadly speaking.

There's no groundswell whatsoever to abolish the word MARRIAGE from the state function.

[KittyWampus]

27. Civil Unions for EVERYONE is the sane solution.

[JackBeck]

34. Why now?

And not during the fight to overturn miscegeny laws?

Seems like a cop out to me.

[Toasterlad]

78. Fine With Me. You Go First.

[kevinbgoode]

4. I don't think the state should be telling ANYONE

who can visit them in the hospital, who HAS to be defined as "next-of-kin" or who the state wants to have automatic access to property, insurance and benefits, particularly when conservatives claim all of these regulations exist because the state MUST endorse THEIR "religious" choices and impose them upon everyone else.

I say scrap all of the marriage laws. Let the churches do their thing, with the stipulation that anyone who marries in that church is subjected to the regulations dictated by that church for dissolution. And let the "married" people get the "protection" of SINGLE people, just like the gays do now. After all, conservatives keep telling me that those protections as "single" people are adequate enough for MY family.

[JackBeck]

7. What's interesting about the "scrap all marriage laws" argument

Is that it was never used to overturn miscegeny laws, but just to exclude LGBT's from marriage.

[mondo joe]

14. Marriage is your way of telling the state - not the state telling you.

Marriage is a contract that many wish to make and so the state makes it a simple process, as it should.

[Book Lover]

56. Excellent point

And one that gets lost in the shuffle of the argument.

[mondo joe]

64. Thank you! I spent thousansd on contracts and wills with my partner to establish

basically the same contract that millions of others wish to establish. It only makes sense for the government to provide for an affordable, convenient way for millions of citizens to establish such a contract.

The government's job is just to accept notice to them of such partnerships.

[aquart]

9. They aren't.

[cliffordu]

10. Gay people should be REQUIRED to get married.....

They need to suffer like everyone else.......

:hi:

[stray cat]

11. Is it preferential to vote against civil unions for the time being?

[mondo joe]

25. IMO, no, that is not preferential.

We'll get equality in one of two ways - suddenly or in fits and jerks.

Suddenly would be preferable by far, as a matter of process.

But as a practical matter, I think it's worthwhile to get people whatever protections are possible while we're getting there. I don't want one more same sex spouse to be denied access to their partner in the hospital, or to lose their shared nestegg, or to lose their home because a homophobic family member challenged a will.

In personal terms: I am in the Washington State domestic patrner registry. It's not even really civil unions. But I have no desire to risk the worst while waiting for the best.

[slampoet]

17. In the Eyes of the law every marriage should be called a Civil Union. If you want a "Marrige" that's

what you should do in a Church or other religious ceremony.



It should be that way for all of us.


That way the individual bigotry of whether gays can marry is on the backs of each church and their internal politics and controversy costs the churches money, not the taxpayers. Once there are money issues in churches maybe they will see that their male gay member couples make more money than breeders and can contribute more to the church.

Welcoming tolerant churches will flourish? Maybe, but it doesn't force narrow minded churches to do anything they don't want while at the same time not letting them use marriage as a wedge issue.

[mondo joe]

18. The state marriage is exactly that: a civil union. It doesn't include any

religious ceremony.

The idea that if you call state marriage something else then anti gay bigots will just not mind is naive in the extreme.

[KittyWampus]

24. sorry, the word marriage has cultural connotations. Other countries went "civil unions for all"

trying to force the word marriage into the discussion is counter productive and totally blind to cultural/historical realities.

[mondo joe]

28. Pure semantics. If you think calling it civil unions will make anti gay bigots not care,

it's very naive. They don't want us to have ANY rights, and least of all ANY legal recognition of our partnerships.

[hulklogan]

80. Exactly. Which is why the recent Colorado initiative for civil unions

was defeated. The anti gay bigots called civil unions "counterfiet marriage" in all their ads.

[JackBeck]

29. We aren't other countries.

We already have marriage established on both a state and federal level with over 1,000 benefits extended to those couples. This article goes to great lengths to show how civil unions don't work. Show me where the grassroots groundwork has been laid to change all marriages to civil unions. There are numerous organizations fighting for marriage equality.

Funny how this was never an issue before LGBT couples wanted a seat at the table.

[gollygee]

49. It has cultural connotations for me, and I'm not religious

Force the word marriage into the discussion? Huh? It's about marriage - there's nothing forced.

[Tyler Durden]

62. And then the states will define relationships using the word "MARRIAGE,"

Because NO candidate currently running has said they support same Sex Marriage.

[JackBeck]

65. I think you're on to something that I may not have thought about.

Are you saying that if every couple were to become a "civil union", then the states would only bestow rights to those who have this so-called "religious marriage"?

I had never thought about that before.

[Tyler Durden]

66. Of course. They do that already.

There are rights that do not apply to "Common Law" spouses that DO apply to "Married couples."

WORDS MEAN THINGS when used to divide people.

[JackBeck]

67. Congratulations.

You just blew-up the "make every marriage a civil union" argument.

:yourock:

[Tyler Durden]

69. Shoot, that argument was made in the 19th century.

The 14th amendment to the constitution. Read Section one. I broke my boycott of GD-P to state the obvious one more time, but the cowards over there won't play.

[KitSileya]

88. Norway did that.

Has had civil unions for over 10 years now. We're so pleased with it, the government just presented a law that will give same-sex couples access to marriage as well. Turns out, separate but equal is a load of bu!!sh!t, and civil unions for all is not part of the Western culture. We get married - that's what people call it, that's what's on the books, that's what all the laws say.

In the US, all those preachers and imams and rabbis and priestesses get their license to marry legally from the state. Not the other way around. Now, preachers, imams, rabbis, and priestesses can refuse to marry couples if they feel don't fulfill their religious definitions of marriage - Catholic priests can refuse to marry divorcees, for example. But it's the state who defines who can get legally married (marriage is a contract, after all) and it's said that divorcees can marry, and same-sexcouples can't. Once upon a time, it said people of different races couldn't marry, and once upon a time, it said 12-year olds could. That has changed. I don't know why you insist on scrapping the whole marriage concept rather than expanding it, but you're the minority, a tiny minority, and the majority of Americans will balk at losing marriage. So to me, it seems that you are deliberately choosing a way that will end in failure for same-sex couples. If that is what you want, try to be honest enough to admit it.

[slampoet]

37. IT may seem that way but these people will be arguing inside their congregations.

And also i think you aren't giving enough credit

to the recruiting power of the following lie,


"They are trying to make us perform gay marriages in every church in America"


This does take some wind out of their sails, or it might have if it had always been this way.

[JackBeck]

39. I'm so glad we still don't allow different races and religions to marry.

Think of the uproar inside congregations if that was allowed.

[mondo joe]

43. And what do you think they'll be saying instead? "Because of gays they

have denied us legal recognition of our marriage!"

[slampoet]

50. Why? Legal recognition is currently not a requirement for a church wedding and vice versa.

The essential procedure only changes for the laity. Everyone else will see that things haven't changed much.


You still sign a state certificate either way.

[mondo joe]

53. Because anti gay bigots will say anything to deny our legal recognition.

If you were expecting them to act logically they wouldn't be opposed to same sex marriage at all.

Gay people aren't going to launch a battle to overturn civil marriage in the United States. We have enough on our plates.

[slampoet]

75. Say anything sure. But we aren't tryin to win over bigots. We are just trying to win over thinkers.

Say what you will about the anti-gay zealots and that will be true but there are at least an equal amount in all churches who would rather leave gays alone.

Many of these people are under the impression that churches are going to get sued into performing gay weddings and frankly not much is being done to dissuade that perception.

[mondo joe]

81. If they are thinking people, they can be taught that civil marriage is not

a church matter.

But if you want to rouse a movement to eliminate civil marriage and call it something else, I wouldn't dream of standing in your way. I'll be busy fighting to get equal marriage rights. :-)

[goddess40]

21. I agree!

I got married in a courthouse and as long as the benefits stay the same I'm all for civil unions with churches doing marriages.

[mikelewis]

23. 100% agree

[Bluenorthwest]

46. No church is now or ever would be

in any way compelled to engage in any ceremony they do not wish to hold. Lots of chruchs hold cermonies for gay couples right now. It is the govrnment side of it, the church is a personal thing some peope do and some don't. Churches don't have to do what the government says, and I do think there are large well known demoninations who do not recognize divorce and will not remarry divorced people. They don't have to. Never will have to. There are churchs that have all kinds of rules for who they will marry and under what circumstances, if you want to marry there. They make people convert and take classes and wait until a certain time has passed, although the government will marry that same couple today. Does the civil law support the actions of the chruch now, or compell them to marry those they deem unacceptable for reasons of tradition or dogma? Nope.

[JackBeck]

48. It's the right wing meme

that if gay marriage were to be legalized, we'd start suing churches that won't perform the service.

After decades of hearing this hate mongering, you'd think some would get it.

[neocon_hater]

38. it would have been easier

to have given gay couples the same rights as everyone else.

now we have to deal with yet another mess handed to us by our republican friends. thanks guys.

[JackBeck]

45. You got it.

Great second post and welcome to DU.

:hi:

[neocon_hater]

68. Glad to be here.

Thanks! Good to be here. Actually, it's good to be in this side now. I used to consider myself a moderate conservative, but lately I've been asking myself, "How long can I continue to support such blatantly failed policies?" The other thing that turned me was that a conservative board I belonged to has turned into a cesspool of racism and bigotry, and it just seems like that's what that whole side is about. Protecting their power at all cost, including trampling on the rights of those that they see as inferior.

In short, I just got sick of it.

I am glad to be here, among people who think people are people, not pawns to be used in their stupid power struggles.

Sorry for getting off topic, but in conclusion, thanks for having me. :)

[kestrel91316]

44. I think the only government institution to unite a couple of WHATEVER

orientation should be "civil union". If people happen to want to get "married" in a church, then that should be church business. But civil union should be what confers legal status on a couple and marriage should only confer religious status.

[JackBeck]

47. So atheists currently can't get married in this country?

[slampoet]

51. Who performs athiest weddings currently?

[JackBeck]

52. I'd guess city hall.

:shrug:

[PVnRT]

54. Justice of the peace, wedding chapels, UU ministers

Just to name a few.

[slampoet]

59. And sometimes Elvis.

Actually i was a licensed Elvis Minister for a time. (it was an art school thing)

[gatorboy]

92. My wife to name another. :)

[neocon_hater]

71. actually...

My wife and I were married my a justice of the peace. No religion was involved.

[EFerrari]

73. Welcome to DU. I was married in a Reno wedding "chapel".

There ceremony went something like, "and if you get along, whatever and cool".

lol

[EFerrari]

72. If we reframe marriage as a religious act, would they want to?

In the Catholic Church, it used to be that you weren't married unless you were married "in the Church". Maybe that's why this strategy makes sense to me.

[kestrel91316]

99. Atheists can get married any day of the week at a Unitarian Church, lol,

but you are missing the point.

We need to re-brand "marriage" as something ONLY a religious institution can do, and something that confers NO legal rights.

We need to rebrand "civil union" as the gold standard for conferrring legal status and rights, and something ONLY a government institution can do (and that does not discriminate on the basis of gender per civil rights laws).

[EFerrari]

70. That's what I think, too. Sidestep the hateful wingnuts.

If we get the State out of the marriage business, the wingers will have to attack CHURCHES that marry gay couples. Wouldn't that be much harder?

Outflank the bastiches.

[Prophet 451]

76. Here, they're treated as marriage

I'm British, we have Domestic Partnerships here but it was written into the law when they were first enacted that in every legal sense, they would be treated identically to marriage. They're even registered on the same paperwork. Literally, the only difference is the name and virtually everyone has referred to it as marriage from the beginning.

[JackBeck]

84. And that's the difference.

The United States has a long, sordid history of herding their citizens into separate groups that they claim are equal, but when it's all said and done, equality seems to be the last thing attainable by those intentions.

[Prophet 451]

90. Which is strange to me

In the US, you have a Constitution that says all people are created equal and yet, looking both at your history and current society, that's categorically untrue. We have no codified Constiution and a monarchy (inherantly unequal) and yet, for the most part, we do a fair job of actually extending equality.

Here, it's just not a big deal. Gay people get married (in all but name) and get all the usual rights and responsibilities; openly serve in the Armed Forces; sometimes marry while serving and the actual effect on our society has been pretty much nil. The Army needs to build a few more married couples quarters and process a few more surviving partner claims but that's about it. When the law was enacted, a few church groups and The Daily Mail (the most right-wing daily paper, think Bill-O meets the National Enquirer) protested but most of the media focused on the friendly contest between Soho and Brighton (both with very large gay communities) to have the most spectacular celebrations and the majority of the public simply didn't have an opinion on the subject. There's still a few homophobic thugs, of course, but the police actually try to catch and prosecute them (with middling success, to be honest, but at least they're trying). And gay couples can adopt here (subject to the usual conditions). And all of this happened in the last five to ten years, with no great fuss or bother. In the States, there are still hordes of people who think gay couples shouldn't have any sort of legal recognition.

It boggles my mind that a nation with a written Bill of Rights, that prides itself on it's patriotism, should hav a society which is so at odds with it's stated purposes.

[HuffleClaw]

79. damn straight (pun intended) it isn't enough

and if those bigots had it their way they'd do the same to interracial marriages too.

[and-justice-for-all]

83. Civil Unions Aren’t Enough...

I told my rep exactly how I feel about this. He supports the 'sanctity' of marriage by denying people the right to marry whom the will.

They have this notion that allowing EVERYONE the right to marry whomever they wish, that the world will fucking' explode. Now, where in the fuck do these people get off calling another class of people unfit for marriage??! It is utter bullshit and they do NOT have the right to deny us the right marry, there is NO bases for them to do so, only some ridiculous bible nonsense.

I have said before and I will say it again "IF MARRIAGE IS SO FUCKING SACRED, THEY SHOULD BAN DIVORCE."

[selador]

85. i agree

civil unions are a compromise and i understand WHY some see them as a good step, but cmon.

gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, and if they have ALL the same rights, it should have the SAME name.

cause it should be the same thing. sorry if that's redundant, but it just seems simple to me

[Firespirit]

86. To everyone who says "make EVERYTHING a civil union":

Your idea is DOA.

Show me polls indicating that a majority of heterosexual married couples would be all right with the government deciding that they weren't actually "married," but were "civil unioned" and could only claim to be married if they had a religious ceremony.

No such polls? OK, show me anecdotal evidence that many couples other than yourselves would be all right with this scheme. That they'd be perfectly OK with shedding the label "married."

Hmm. No?

This should give you a clue. Civil unions for everyone are not an acceptable answer. Maybe they are in France, but this isn't France, and here, it's a cultural thing. People want to get married, and that includes gay people.

Equal marriage stands a FAR better chance of passing than abolition of marriage.

[mondo joe]

91. Well said. I don't know where people get these ideas - but it seems they always

come from people with little or no investment in whether we get marriage equality or not.

[crimsonblue]

87. I'll admit, I personally think marriage is between a guy and a girl BUT

I don't have the right to dictate this belief to others. If two loving people want to be in a committed relationship and truly love and care for another, then it's really none of my business what race or gender they are. The way I feel about it is that it is okay for me to personally not be a big fan of it, but other people have the right to their thoughts and the right to join into union. Plus, its not like us heteros have really given marriage a good name. I think us guys could use some same sex couples kicking our ass raising children to motivate us to be engaged in our children's lives..

[JackBeck]

98. You're brave.

But I appreciate your honesty and you seem to be on the right path.

[Skittles]

89. they aren't

it is discrimination, pure and simple

[Solly Mack]

94. Not equal...not enough

By depriving people of their rights, a privileged class is created...


whose members seek special rights based on manufactured exclusionary standards in hopes of setting themselves apart from - and above - other people in order to feel better about themselves.

It's the providence of the cowardly, petty, and insecure. People who want so much to be anything but what they are - average - normal - the same.

Because being the same means being just like everyone else and then their wants and needs - their very life - doesn't set them apart from the crowd.

There's nothing unique or special about their love - their marriage - their beliefs - their ideas...and if they can't be special then all the bad that can and does happen to other people can happen to them as well.

Fear dominates their very existence and they seek to control others because they can't control the world and what may happen to them.

While such people are to be pitied, it should never be forgetten the danger they pose to others.

When people say be satisfied with civil unions, those people are still holding fast to their standards of exclusive rights - of special rights.

It's effectively saying *WE* have marriage - and *YOU*, because you are different and therefore not like us, have something else...something different..something not special...something less

It's saying you're less than we are so this is all you can have

*WE* take ownership of a word...but it's not just a word, is it?..It's an entire concept upon which the society we live in places great value.

So when you deny people marriage, you aren't just denying them a word - you're denying them everything that comes with that word...that concept.

[Ohio Joe]

97. Nothing less then full equal rights

Anything else is un-American.

[guitar man]

100. no, it's not enough

I'm an old, straight, bald white guy and I say hell no, it's not enough. Equality is equality, period. We either have it in this country or we don't. I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends and I want them to have every right that I do. Period. There is no excuse or justification for doing otherwise any longer, equal rights for everyone now!! :grr: