One could say (and I don't advocate it, I'm using this to proove a point...bear with me) that with the advent of women's rights in this country of ours...logically, there's no purpose to anyone being married. Women no longer need the protection of a man, financially or practically. Children no longer need to be "legitimate" to claim their rights from both parents. There are even financial dangers in marrying someone....heaven help you the day you realize that your beloved spouse is leaving you after having maxed out your joint credit cards (my poor dad...not a good day). Frankly, it's not logical to need this legal or social reinforcement of what's now primarily an emotional bond.

Nonetheless, this archaic institution is still woven into the fabric of our society. Spouses get special priveleges, ones too numerous to be conveniently indexed. And not all of them legally binding. Nonetheless, we could as easily settle this dispute, make everyone equal...by abolishing the institution of marriage altogether. It is, in actuality, the "logical" answer....if logic really is the problem here. I don't think it is.

Heterosexuals (SOME of them, by no means all) want to get married. Hell, _I_ want to get married someday. Not just because it makes getting a mortage mroe straightforward, but because it's a way to confirm our relationship in front of the world....and to make the world recognize that it exists. Add to the emotional need to formalize emotional coupling the economic and legal benefits given to a spouse. Not only does it, in some cases, change your tax status (and for the record, not always for the better)...but mortgage companies look more favorably on married couples. Having tried to buy a house with a close friend/roommate....this I know to be true. Medically, there's a hell of a lot of difference between "life partner" and "next of kin." Legally, my partner (if I had one) can be forced to testify against me because they're not a spouse. Beyond emotional and financial benefits, you've got purely social ones. And these are the hardest ones to talk about, because here practicality and logic go out the window. Anyone who's gone from bf/gf to fiance or spouse knows that it changes your social status. In the most trivial example I can think of, a spouse can get me out of a class to come to the phone when I'm needed....a boy friend cannot. And when necessary, my bf uses "husband power" to get things done. Husbands can talk to bank managers about my missing debit card, bank managers won't talk to boyfriends. Illogical, but a real life example. In a much more serious example...the business I work in requires me to relocate a lot, universities will bend over backward to help a spouse find a job in the new location. They will not do the same for a boyfriend. Note, it's a purely social distinction, they're under no legal obligation to do either. They just assume that my spouse getting a job is a deal breaker, while boyfriends are more temporary and therefore I might leave them behind. Afterall...if I was really serious about the relationship....I'd have married the guy, right? There are loads I'm missing out on, I know...but it's just a quick cross section of why this token hetero wants to be married. And I see no reason here that wouldn't be equally applicable to a homosexual.

The emotional desire to acknowledge one's relationship is part of human nature...and homosexuals are all too human. They want the acknowledgement. Could that be given to them with a civil union? It could, but only with the undesirable reminder that they are different, and in the eys of many....not "really" married. The financial pressures to be married are all part of living in this country and wanting the best life you can get for yourself. There's no logical reason why these shouldn't apply equally to homosexual people. Could they be granted with a civil union. Honestly, not easily. Seperate but equal didn't work in the segregated south purely because seperate institutions implied that one group was better than another...and therefore got consistently better treatment. Even before desegregation...black americans had to fight to maintain the equal part of "seperate but equal," and never really got it. There might be similar stuggles with banks, insurance companies, HMOs, adoption agencies, benefit agencies, etc. ad naseum to establish that in each case "yes folks, civil unions are the same thing HERE too." It's not logical to put the country through that when the simplest answer is to give these people the same protection everyone else has just by lifting the ban on marriage. The social pressures to marry, well....there's the problem. Of course gay couples feel them....but it's more than that, because granting the title of "marriage" to a gay union implies they deserve the same social acceptance as "hetero" couples. They don't see themselves as different (nor do I, for that matter), but the people who resist sharing their instutuion need social affirmation that homosexuals _are_ different. And both sides are right insofar as extending this social status to gay marriages is going to be a step towards allowing them into our precious concept of what's normal. It thrills some, scares others, and has propelled us into another age of social change and education. The only thing we can do is keep talking about it...and thank the brave people who force us to have this issue in front of our eyes as much as possible. However they choose to do it, civil disobenience is civil disobedience....and laws frequently get broken.

I'm not going to go into what makes a gay person gay here...there's too much, and this is already far too long. God knows if you're still reading I owe you a beer. But here's my problem...the constitution was intentionally written to be as inclusive as possible in its era. We've gone through several waves of broadening in this country, admitting that our founding fathers didn't get the details right the first time. But boy oh boy did they get the basic principle right....all citizens have the same rights. For better or worse, none of us are special, and there should be no second class citizens. By that logic, because the gay communities are good, tax paying Americans...they already have the right to marry. They're just demanding that right be enforced.

And honestly, I think it will be. Eventually. And my kids will be just as amazed as I was to learn that racial segregation was ever considered normal...or as my mom was to learn that people used to think that women couldn't handle money or be trusted to vote.

Much more than my 2cents. Sorry...it's been building up for a while.