Interesting position… more pro-traditional marriage than anything else. I’m eager to see if this position is popular overall. I suspect that the reporter who wrote the article may have misrepresented the groups position on the issue. Either that or this advocacy group has changed gears rather suddenly in response to the court ruling. I suspect that this is a fallback position on the issue and it is easier to overturn a ruling from the bench related to civil unions.

Equal, outside of math, is an entirely subjective concept, especially in politics. And in a democracy, the word ‘equal’ is most often applied in a way that would make Einstein shiver and vomit uncontrollably.

And since I’m already giving a lot of thought to pulling my two one year old sons out of the coal pits and training them to be divorce lawyers instead - a position that doesn’t require a union card - this civil unions/marriage distinction is six of one, half dozen of the other as I see it.

When the slaves were liberated, they couldn’t vote. Baby steps. It’s how we manage to stay on top for so long. The hard-liners dig their nails into the dirt, kick and scream the whole way, but eventually the right thing happens, piece by piece.

In ten years time we’ll look at the prison population and decide that marijuana possession isn’t a good charge to fill up a cell for. State by state…just like gays looking to make the misery official.

A lot of the problem in this debate is that marriage has two definitions: the legal contractual definition and the holy religious definition. Let’s give the legal contract a different name. Take government out of the business of issuing “marriage” licenses entirely, make them civil unions for everyone.