Grights

I think most of us in the campaign support gay marriage. And I agree with the senator that most of this argument is semantics IF civil-unions where given all the legal attributes of marriage. However if it is all semantics then why not just take the leap and call it marriage? It would further define Obama as 'straight forward' rather than this backdoor policy of legislating it in. What if the politicians at the time of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), had decided that miscegenation was not acceptable to be termed as marriage but rather should be called miscegenation-unions and should have all the rights and privileges of a "pure-breed" marriage? Could I get on my knee and say "will you miscegenate-union me?" For that matter should Gay men and women have to get on their knee and say "will you civil-union" me? I understand that the "rest of the country" is believed to be "just not ready for it." But isn't the "rest of the country" going to be just as insulted by this backdoor policy? Just as insulted as a man who has to call a would be husband a CU Partner? Still wouldn't it be great if even though we didn't call it a marriage we could firmly establish that all of those involved including their children were legally considered "family." Children wouldn't have to say "this is my Civil-Union Father could he please allow me to not die in the hospital?" Isn't that the real point here; that these families need to be legally regarded as so? Wouldn't "family" be the key term that Obama could use to differentiate himself from that other candidate who only recently decided to support a states-right to define marriage after a personal "evolvement." An evolvement which took 40 years after her opposition to the 64 Civil Rights Amendment. Why must we still act un-evolved? Why are these leaders afraid to grasp a kinder, brighter future?