How would adopting kids work if the couple isn't married? Tbh, I don't know how that works now.

Creating a separate term that is otherwise equal seems pointless to me and opens the door to discrimination. I want real equal rights, not a compromise that homophobes would approve of.

+1

Even the slightest things like terminology is still discrimination and can still be used against gays. We cannot under any circumstances allow homophobes one damn inch here.

Being married is not a requirement for adopting kids. (Well, maybe it is for some adoption agencies or biological parents, but it is at their discretion.)

Adoption could turn out to be a very tricky issue. AFAIK, Ganstaman is correct that current laws do not prohibit unmarried couples (or single individuals, btw) from adopting. However, some states (Florida comes to mind) do specifically say that you cannot adopt if you are gay... So, if something happened whereby Florida had to recognize same sex marriages, would it also have to allow gay folks to adopt or could it, as a matter of law, continue to say, "no, we actually think that having two gay parents is so much worse for a child than one straight parent that we will allow single straight people to adopt, but not a married gay couple..."

It is equal rights and homophobes will still disapprove.

damn str8 guys tbh didnt understand a damn word itt all day...wtf are these guys talking about with their no government and civil contracts and wat...the issue is what it is and we have a government man sorry...so its nice to read something that i understand and agree with here

Warning: semi-coherent ramblings below:

Ideally, I'd like for "marriage" to be limited to references to private religious rights, and for "civil unions/domestic partnerships" to refer to any/all relationships that were recognized by the state.

Given that this split won't happen anytime soon, however, I'm quite torn about whether to hold out for full marriage equality or settle for something that has every other legal characteristic of marriage but was given a different name... As someone who knows many same sex couples who are would like to marry but can't, IKd like to see them get the benefits of marriage as soon as possible even if it had to be called something else... But when I remember growing up as a gay teenager, I feel that all statements by my government that basically told me that it viewed me as different from and lesser than my straight peers were pretty devestating, so I can see the importance of using the same terminology for gay and straight relationships...

So, I guess the ideal would be legal rights now, terminology later... As long as achieving civil unions wouldn't take all of the momentum out of the push for full equality.

Why exactly does it have to be called anything but "marriage?" This is what I don't get about this whole debate, there's always people saying, "Okay, you can marry, but let's not call it a marriage." WTF? Is it because religion has officially copyrighted it, which makes their right to pick and choose who to marry supersede people's rights to express their love while getting legal perks?

I wonder if the proponents of civil unions understand what they are.

First, they're state ran, which means if you have a civil union it doesn't have to be, and often isn't respected outside of the state that issued it. Second, they don't get any of the federal benefits of marriage, because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Third, related to the first but more specific, is that hospitals outside of the state you were married in aren't going to recognize the union. Fourth, if you have kids, there are no legally binding obligations between spouses to help support the children. Fifth, if your partner dies you do not pick up their social security and the other government benefits offered to married couples... Sixth!

I'll stop there. There are a lot more. Over 1,000 different government protections and tax incentives for being married.

I think it's because the word means different things to different people... For some people, it is a religious rite first and the governmental recognition is secondary. For other people, it's all about the legal recognition and religion has nothing to do with it... Others fall somewhere in the middle. So, while I don't agree with the people who oppose same sex marriage (because my definition of the word mostly implicates the legal aspects), I find it very hard to debate people who have a fundamentally different definition of the word we're debating....

So, if, in order to appease the opponents you told me that gay people could receive all of the legal rights of married straight couples at both the federal and state level and the only restriction would be that the government would not call that recognition marriage, I'm not sure if I would take that deal, but it would be quite tempting...

Civil unions can actually be great from a tax perspective. If you live in a community property state, you and your partner get to split all your income 50/50, but you get to use the single rate brackets because of DOMA. It's a delightful irony.

Perhaps if a state that allowed civil unions was also a community property state, that would be an issue, but that's not the case.

There are several domestic partnership states where it's relevant.

Ah, didn't realize they had different forms of gay marriagesq stuff. Either way, this fragmentation is further proof of the need of a federal answer to same sex marriage.

Geez, maybe I should turn gay.

I'm sure there is more than a fair bit of sarcasm in your statement, but considering that you wouldn't be entitled to each others' SS benefits, you'd have to pay estate taxes if you died with a significant inheritance, and that you'd probably spend a lot of $ consulting lawyers in order to draft contracts to give you some of the same legal rights that married partners already enjoy, I wouldn't be going gay for the money, yo...

ETA: also, from a tax perspective, filing as a single person isn't always better... It depends on how much each person makes and who is able to claim certain deductions... For example, certain deductions phase out at a much lower level if you file individually than if you file as a couple.

why does anyone want to stop people from getting married :-(

According to your poll answer, you want to stop polygamy, incest and all other types of non-traditional marriage.

Well we want people to get married, just the RIGHT KIND OF MARRIED amirite?

For those who voted "Same-sex marriage", why didn't you vote for "Same-sex marriage plus more currently unrecognised forms"?

I've never seen an argument for that position that coheres well with the reasons usually offered in favor of same sex marriage.

Maybe they think that marriage should only be allowed between two consenting adult humans that are not closely related. I don't agree but not necessarily a weird position imo.

Thats not an argument tho
What im getting at is that gay marriage is usually argued for with talk of rights, freedom and liberty, yet the other stuff is rejected because (and this is usually just claimed rather than supported) it isnt conducive to society

Not allowing gay marriage doesn't go beyond "the old testament says so" but is that an argument?

while that may well be why people reject gay marriage, they often argue that it isnt conducive to society..

Yes, that is your answer.

Marriage is a social construct, not a mathematical proof.