It may have changed. I am not one of Her Majesty’s subjects. But isn’t the crown the head of the church as well? In which case that makes sense. Toleration of being a-religious is secondary to acceptance of the state church.

AFAIK, this is true once the civil partnership (sic) is enacted. H0wever, there’s a significant difference in the enacting process – civil partnerships may not happen in a church or other place of worship, and must be conducted in a strictly secular fashion. For same-sex couples who are part of a religious community, that’s quite a big issue. Increasing numbers of liberal churches are willing to bless same-sex unions (Quakers have been good on this in the UK), but the actual legal process has to happen separately, which is quite different from opposite-sex unions.

Regarding marriage vs. civil union, lots of people think it’s silly to insist we give exactly identical legal rights to two different types of marriage-like entities without calling them the same thing.

We already do that with marriage-like entities that are already called “marriage”—different states in the U.S. have different laws regarding marriage. In some places, a man can marry a 16-year-old girl. In others, not. The differences are virtually endless.

I’ve long thought that the best way around this impasse would be for gay rights activists to:
—Accept civil unions as the practical status quo solution.—Work to make the law regarding civil unions as uniform as possible around the U.S.—Then work to make civil unions a better deal than marriage, for most people.

Basically, when most straight couples are signing civil union papers down at city hall, for all the advantages, but saying “married” in casual conversation, you’ve won.

Until that day, when cultural conservatives complain that step 3 means “gays are privileged”, you come right back with this: “What the hell are you talking about? Nobody’s preventing you from entering into a civil union. In fact, precisely because we’re so considerate of everybody’s basic human rights, we’ve lobbied strongly for the ability to convert a marriage directly to a civil union, the same day, without even getting divorced first. Divorce can be so wrenching, you know. Traumatic for the kids.”

Of course, then you’ll get hit with, “But I don’t want to have to say I’m the ‘domestic partner’ of somebody, for various legal purposes, in order to get all the same rights you have with civil unions.”

That’s when you get to roll your eyes, sigh, shake your head sadly, and respond, “Oh, that objection is just so—gay.”

This was an awfully close call. I’m not worried that Democrats wouldn’t nominate a woman; that Hillary isn’t president-elect is due to campaign blunders on her part.

Obama had committed himself to overturn DOMA, and Biden’s VP debate claims would require that. Greenwald has a good piece on this.

I suspect it’s possible to find a clear legal definition of the consequences of being married, i.e. rights and responsibilities, which in any reasonable sense translates the legal definition of “the purpose of marriage” into “enacting a union between 2 people in which both partners agree to the following rights and responsibilities. 1, 2, 3, etc.”

Regarding marriage vs. civil union, lots of people think it’s silly to insist we give exactly identical legal rights to two different types of marriage-like entities without calling them the same thing. And more importantly, calling gay marriage something other than a “marriage” might prevent a lot of specific law about “married individuals” from applying.

in .uk civil unions convey exactly the same legal rights, including inheriting, as marriage. yes, the naming convention is a sop to bigots, but it’s a good indicator that not being called ‘marriage’ doesn’t have to affect the actual rights associated with the process.

Pretty much zero, since he’s constitutionally ineligible. One has to be a “natural-born” U.S. citizen to be president, which means both Schwarzenegger and Granholm are out.

That is very well put, and exactly why I have wept with joy from time to time over the past few weeks. It really is an incredible milestone for this country.

Novakant, there is nothing wrong at all. But not saying it is about financial security and benefits and continuing to focus upon “freedom of choice” as the be all and end all of social approval is not right either.

Laura, if judges are bigots, then not only wills, even laws don’t mean anything.

Kenny, point taken. And hope made as well.

My point is not so much about the gay part (which you would have noticed by now, I am not too fond of. But, no objections. Just not me. That’s all.) as it is about the marriage part. Unless there is a clear legal definition of the purpose of marriage, hetero or homo is inconsequential. Why do you want social approval of your choice of partner in life.