Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want...
As I said from the beginning, I think your proposal is a step in the right direction. Acknowledging the humanity of gay and lesbian people is a crucial first step, and one that many people don't seem to make.

thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?"

Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides.
That is indeed a great question. Here's how I'd break it down.

What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law. Legitimization in the eyes of society. That they are not treated as pariahs by their own government.

"The other side" could be seeking one of two things, neither of which I believe is well-served by your suggestion of a "separate but equal" ins***ution parallel to marriage. They could be seeking:

  1. Complete delegitimation of gay and lesbian people. Denial that they exist, or trying to force them either into the closet or into "reparative therapy". No recognition of their humanity, no acknowledgment that they have or want to form meaningful, intimate relationships.
  2. The religious liberty to determine standards of morality according to their own consciences. The ability to refrain from participation in, or blessing of, same-sex relationships. The freedom to denounce ****sexuality.

For those who want 1), I simply have nothing to say, except my confidence that they will lose in the marketplace of ideas.

For those that want 2), I can appreciate and respect that, though I think it's wrong and harmful to young gay people. I support the rights of religious groups & organizations to refrain from conducting marriages they deem immoral.

But that's no reason to create a parallel ins***ution of "domestic partnership". Going back to my example of the Catholic Church, they may (as an organization), decide that marriage is only a union of a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman, but that's no reason to rename a union of two Jews, or two men, or two divorcees, into something other than "marriage", simply to pander to Catholics' religious beliefs. Civil government is not, and should not be, in the business of determining orthodox spirituality. (That's for the best, for both Church and State.)