Because IMHO it's an easy solution to what boils down to an argument over semantics. - Even if civil unions had identical state benefits as marriage (and I know in many states they don't), gay couples would still want the the state to call their union a marriage. - Even if conservatives accepted identical state benefits for gay couples (and I know many don't), they would still balk at the state's calling such a union a marriage. What should the state do if both groups wants action that alienates the other and neither wants to give an inch. It's like when your kids each want something that'll deprive the other(s) of what they want. Sometimes you have to say "You guys figure it out amongst yourselves. I'm tired of this argument." For the record, I support gay marriage. I just think everyone's getting way too worked up over the state's definition. Just define it as you see fit.
Someone made his decision, yesterday. Did it change any of the laws to allow gay couples to get married? No.
How profound, tell us more. The backing of gay marriage by the president of the United States of America is an unprecedented event and it is being treated as such.
Of course, it is. I never said it wasn't, but at the same time . . . it's only one step because so many states are voting against constitutional amendments for it. My biggest point to the OP is that the president isn't only function that is important in all of this, considering all of the hardline states.
