Fo, I get that Tom spun my post, he's new here. Maybe my post read different than my intent. Wouldn't be the first time I made a sloppy post. Of course all my examples are criminal.

Tom, I don't give a flying flock what gays do in private. Not my concern and effects me not in the slightest. Civil unions are fine by me. Live and let live. But when I encounter militant gays like you, who go on about how your going to shove your life style on everyone and make them accept it, I revert to my baser self and say **** 'em. I can tolerate you. But you can't tolerate my tolerance. You just have to demand I approve. Ain't going to happen. Why you think your tactics work when everyone tell you they don't, well keep it up.

Go ahead and misread all of my posts. I don't advocate for polygamy. If marriage is opened to allow what is clearly NOT marriage, kind of hard then to ban what has historically been marriage.

(08-12-2011 11:25 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Fo, I get that Tom spun my post, he's new here. Maybe my post read different than my intent. Wouldn't be the first time I made a sloppy post. Of course all my examples are criminal.

Tom, I don't give a flying flock what gays do in private. Not my concern and effects me not in the slightest. Civil unions are fine by me. Live and let live. But when I encounter militant gays like you, who go on about how your going to shove your life style on everyone and make them accept it, I revert to my baser self and say **** 'em. I can tolerate you. But you can't tolerate my tolerance. You just have to demand I approve. Ain't going to happen. Why you think your tactics work when everyone tell you they don't, well keep it up.

Go ahead and misread all of my posts. I don't advocate for polygamy. If marriage is opened to allow what is clearly NOT marriage, kind of hard then to ban what has historically been marriage.

We are more vocal about these issues, because it directly affects our lives.

I'd like tolerance. I demand equal treatment under the law. That's what you don't understand about our community. There are people who dislike us. We get that. Its unfortunate. But what is unacceptable is those that seek to use the state to discriminate. Please understand that. Tolerance is nice, but equality is essential.

If you care about the institution of marriage, then I'd argue that the best thing for it is to allow Gay marriages. Civil Unions (or second class marriage) doesn't satisfy anyone. You see, Gays aren't going to be happy unless they get the 1200 or so state benefits from marriage (and those only come via marriage - not via civil unions - its just how our laws are written). Fundys are not going to be happy because the state recognizes Gay relationships as valid. And straight couples increasingly choose civil unions over marriages where civil unions are an option. And that's where the real danger to marriage comes from. In California 20 percent of straight couples choose civil unions. Not marriage. And that number is rising.

We are a part of society. And we should be represented in society as well. That includes teaching everyone about the contributions that Gay Americans have provided to society. Look, the GOP (and some Dems) have no problem identifying Gay people for the purposes of attacking us (politically they say - personally we say). And we should have the same opportunity to provide our talents in the Armed Forces, and for federally funded social organizations.

As perhaps you can see from your postings and the postings of others in here, its not unreasonable for Gay people to conclude that there is still significant stigma and hatred of Gay people in this nation. But we've seen it all before. And we will press on. And we are winning. The path of progress is long, but it bends towards justice.

As far as our tactics go, I think you don't see what our choices are. We get it. Many Americans don't want to ever face the issue of Gay people and how society is supposed to treat us. So we can be quiet and patient, which only causes our issues to be ignored. Or we can be loud and obnoxious. And that causes some to be ugly (which we then use to our advantage). But even if the fundys don't engage in hateful speech as a result, they don't have an argument against Gay equality other than 'my religion doesn't like it' or unvarnished bias. Neither of these are compelling reasons to oppose public policies regarding Gay equality. So long as we ensure that Gay issues stay in the news, we see that as a win. If we are quiet, our supposed allies will ignore us and no one will move on our issues.

So that's why we are loud about it. Bigotry and name calling we can handle (and even turn to our advantage). Its silence that is the real enemy.

I am a pretty strong proponent of gay rights. I get there out of tolerance, and my generally libertarian philosophy. If you have a different viewpoint from me, it is my duty to tolerate you and your viewpoint, in order that in the end we may all be better off. In return, I expect the same tolerance from you for my point of view.

If you are not willing to extend the same tolerance to me, then I will still have an open mind for your point of view, but I will have very little use for you individually.

This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

(08-13-2011 12:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am a pretty strong proponent of gay rights. I get there out of tolerance, and my generally libertarian philosophy. If you have a different viewpoint from me, it is my duty to tolerate you and your viewpoint, in order that in the end we may all be better off. In return, I expect the same tolerance from you for my point of view.

If you are not willing to extend the same tolerance to me, then I will still have an open mind for your point of view, but I will have very little use for you individually.

Absolutely.

I fail to understand from our friend Tom why "civil unions" would not solve his complaints in regard to sharing the legal benefits of marriage.

If the "real" agenda is sharing the legal benefits of marriage then WTF is the problem with civil unions being that instrument? I have a feeling that there are some radical activists in the gay community that actually have "other" agendas.

For clarity...I support civil unions as the instrument of contract for ALL couples. Marriage can be done at the church of your choice..or..save the money and not bother with a ceremony. That is none of my business.

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

I doubt seriously that most in the gay community are as vocal and principled as our friend Tom. I believe that most just simply want to live their lives quietly and peacefully like the rest of us. I understand the problem with the legal aspects of marriage and I see no reason why civil unions would not be acceptable to the vast majority of the gay community. I think Tom is in the minority in his views.

(08-13-2011 08:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am a pretty strong proponent of gay rights. I get there out of tolerance, and my generally libertarian philosophy. If you have a different viewpoint from me, it is my duty to tolerate you and your viewpoint, in order that in the end we may all be better off. In return, I expect the same tolerance from you for my point of view.

If you are not willing to extend the same tolerance to me, then I will still have an open mind for your point of view, but I will have very little use for you individually.

Absolutely.

I fail to understand from our friend Tom why "civil unions" would not solve his complaints in regard to sharing the legal benefits of marriage.

If the "real" agenda is sharing the legal benefits of marriage then WTF is the problem with civil unions being that instrument? I have a feeling that there are some radical activists in the gay community that actually have "other" agendas.

For clarity...I support civil unions as the instrument of contract for ALL couples. Marriage can be done at the church of your choice..or..save the money and not bother with a ceremony. That is none of my business.

Wow! Fo! We actually agree on something. But I've yet to see anyone in the gay community that posts on this board willing to accept civil unions. Forcing the Marriage issue definitely intrudes in religous space which is why gubment should change from marriage to civil unions.

(08-13-2011 09:06 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 08:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am a pretty strong proponent of gay rights. I get there out of tolerance, and my generally libertarian philosophy. If you have a different viewpoint from me, it is my duty to tolerate you and your viewpoint, in order that in the end we may all be better off. In return, I expect the same tolerance from you for my point of view.

If you are not willing to extend the same tolerance to me, then I will still have an open mind for your point of view, but I will have very little use for you individually.

Absolutely.

I fail to understand from our friend Tom why "civil unions" would not solve his complaints in regard to sharing the legal benefits of marriage.

If the "real" agenda is sharing the legal benefits of marriage then WTF is the problem with civil unions being that instrument? I have a feeling that there are some radical activists in the gay community that actually have "other" agendas.

For clarity...I support civil unions as the instrument of contract for ALL couples. Marriage can be done at the church of your choice..or..save the money and not bother with a ceremony. That is none of my business.

Wow! Fo! We actually agree on something. But I've yet to see anyone in the gay community that posts on this board willing to accept civil unions. Forcing the Marriage issue definitely intrudes in religous space which is why gubment should change from marriage to civil unions.

Like I said...I question the "real" agenda of any gay activist that would oppose that civil unions be the method of legal marriage for everyone.

BTW...We agree on more than you think....probably 90%.

CRH will correct me if I'm remembering wrong but I believe he has said civil unions are OK with him.

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

No..I'd argue that silence is the main obstacle.

Look, the dominionists/fundys are going to throw a fit everytime any issue of gay equality is debated. It doesn't matter what the issue is or how reasonable it is. So we don't concern ourselves about backlash when deciding what issues to press forward with. We play our game..and let the other side play theirs.

No equality measures are going to pass unless we demand them. The Dems see us as a liability rather than an asset. So they aren't going to do squat for us unless we are loud enough to create pressure for action. And quiet and polite doesn't create pressure.

The reason that there has been a sea change in public support for Gay civil rights bills is because of the actions of the Gay community. Sure, we've lost a lot of ballot propositions. But the debate that those ballot propositions have engendered have forced some people to reevaluate their opposition to Gay civil rights. And the tide is turning. Not as fast as we'd like, but its turning in our favor. 10 years ago, civil unions would have been inconcievable politically. Now, its supported by a majority of Americans. Those ballot propositions against Gays are prima facie unconstitutional now that several states have enacted marriage equality (Full faith and credit). And they won't get a Constitutional Amendment passed to ban it as that window has closed politically (The GOP would need to find 67 Senators to vote for it and pass it through 2/3rds of the state legislatures - that isn't going to happen).

The "In Your Face" is the tactic we are left with to keep the pressure on. We are aware there will be some sort of backlash, but we're not seeing any other way to keep our issues front and center.

Justice delayed is justice DENIED.

And finally, we'd like tolerance and acceptance. But we demand equal treatment under the law. We'll fight for our rights under the law first and then worry about tolerance.

(08-12-2011 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yea thats why Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union demonized and imprisoned persons, simply because they were Gay.

For the record, those were Communist Goals for the US, not the USSR or Cuba. I didn't bring that here to make a point about gay people; I brought it here to add to something someone else said that had nothing to do with gay people.

(08-13-2011 09:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:06 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 08:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am a pretty strong proponent of gay rights. I get there out of tolerance, and my generally libertarian philosophy. If you have a different viewpoint from me, it is my duty to tolerate you and your viewpoint, in order that in the end we may all be better off. In return, I expect the same tolerance from you for my point of view.

If you are not willing to extend the same tolerance to me, then I will still have an open mind for your point of view, but I will have very little use for you individually.

Absolutely.

I fail to understand from our friend Tom why "civil unions" would not solve his complaints in regard to sharing the legal benefits of marriage.

If the "real" agenda is sharing the legal benefits of marriage then WTF is the problem with civil unions being that instrument? I have a feeling that there are some radical activists in the gay community that actually have "other" agendas.

For clarity...I support civil unions as the instrument of contract for ALL couples. Marriage can be done at the church of your choice..or..save the money and not bother with a ceremony. That is none of my business.

Wow! Fo! We actually agree on something. But I've yet to see anyone in the gay community that posts on this board willing to accept civil unions. Forcing the Marriage issue definitely intrudes in religous space which is why gubment should change from marriage to civil unions.

Like I said...I question the "real" agenda of any gay activist that would oppose that civil unions be the method of legal marriage for everyone.

BTW...We agree on more than you think....probably 90%.

I have no problem with removing all rights for straight couples married and force them to go to the courthouse for a civil union (which would be open to Gays) in order to get state recognition. Its not going to happen though.

It would require that about 1700 laws on the Federal level alone to be amended. And tens of thousands of state laws. Its just not practical. As far as a 'solution' it works great in theory, but not in political reality.

For purposes of 'protecting marriage', its misguided in my opinion to create civil unions(with less rights and responsibilities) while marriage is still an option. This has been the 'solution' that many states have been moving towards. The problem with this solution is that it is still unequal. Furthermore, since this option is open to straight people, many straights are choosing civil unions rather than marriage. And this is causing marriage rates to drop precipitously in states like California. I don't really have a problem if some couple choose to have 'marriage lite', but if someone wants to protect the institution of marriage, the movement of straight couples to civil unions is fraught with danger for marriage.

So I see marriage equality as the solution that makes the most sense.

(08-12-2011 10:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 10:21 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That would include McCarthy. F'n leftest who would side with our enemies against us are NOT patriots.

Ok.. So I've already given you many points based upon facts as to why I think Joe McCarthy was not a patriot.

Anyone else you'd like to hold up as a patriot?

Whom do you presume is siding with our enemies? Can you be a bit more specific than some F'n leftest (sic)?

Communists are almost ALWAYS EXTREMELY hostile to gay people because they don't procreate and they believe they don't offer anything to the state, other than work. You don't add to the population. Gay people were rounded up and imprisoned or murdered in communist regimes. The reason that sentence was in their goals for the US is because they felt it would harm the fabric of the nation.

If would do you good to PRAISE Joseph McCarthy. He was fighting a philosophy that was hostile to your life.

(08-12-2011 09:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Harvey Milk, the first openly Gay elected official of any consequence on planet earth, led a movement to teach Gays themselves that they could be proud of who they are. He led the first successful Gay ballot fight (against the Briggs Amendment). He was assasinated by a right wing, Christian politician. His murderer received 3 years in prison for killing him.

He was the most significant politician in the last 50 years in California's second largest city.

He is as significant to today's political discourse as Cesar Chavez or any of the Religous Right are.

You can teach your kids that Gays are filthy disgusting creatures and lie to them about us at home. Not at school. At least not in California.

Quote:Good spin. Milk was killed by a former city supervisor who had suffered discrimination because he didn't properly blend into his city's ethnic flavor. Where's his ******* movie?

Exactly how was Dan White discriminated against? Back it up. Because he got 3 years in jail for the premeditated assasination of the Mayor of San Francisco and Harvey Milk? Because Moscone and Milk refused to appoint the disruptive Dan White back onto the Board of Supervisors after he resigned?

Please...try to defend the assertion that Dan White was a victim of discrimination...

Here's my defense, that is. unless you don't believe Wiki

Quote:On November 10, 1978, 10 months after being sworn in, White resigned his position on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, claiming that his annual salary of $9,600 was not enough to support his family.[108] Milk was also feeling the pinch of the decrease in income when he and Scott Smith were forced to close Castro Camera a month before.[note 8] Within days, White requested that his resignation be withdrawn and he be reinstated, and Mayor Moscone initially agreed.[109][110] However, further consideration—and intervention by other supervisors—convinced the mayor to appoint someone more in line with the growing ethnic diversity of White's district and the liberal leanings of the Board of Supervisors.[111] On November 18, news broke of the murder of California Representative Leo Ryan, who was in Jonestown, Guyana to check on the remote community built by members of the Peoples Temple who had relocated from San Francisco. The next day came news of the mass suicide of members of the Peoples Temple. Horror came in degrees as San Franciscans learned more than 400 Jonestown residents were dead.[112] Dan White remarked to two aides who were working for his reinstatement, "You see that? One day I'm on the front page and the next I'm swept right off."[113] Soon the number of dead in Guyana topped 900.[114]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk


The ball is in your court - who's laughing now professor?

(08-13-2011 11:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

No..I'd argue that silence is the main obstacle.

Look, the dominionists/fundys are going to throw a fit everytime any issue of gay equality is debated.

So do gay supporters

Quote: It doesn't matter what the issue is or how reasonable it is.

QED.

Quote:Justice delayed is justice DENIED.

Quote:And finally, we'd like tolerance and acceptance. But we demand equal treatment under the law.

You have equal treatment, that's been proven deductively. You want special treatment.

(08-13-2011 11:53 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yea thats why Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union demonized and imprisoned persons, simply because they were Gay.

For the record, those were Communist Goals for the US, not the USSR or Cuba. I didn't bring that here to make a point about gay people; I brought it here to add to something someone else said that had nothing to do with gay people.

In a thread about Gay characters? Then it would be a bit off topic. I do that too sometimes.

But I'd love your rebuttal to my comments regarding Mr. Skousen (the author of that screed). And note that I discussed the Verona documents and the 'credentials' of his (very few) contemporary defenders.

Dude, Skousen (the guy who wrote your little list) is crazy and has about half as much credibility as a Michael Jackson Day Care Center.

If you wish to defend Joe McCarthy and quote Skousen, please understand that those two have been roundly condemned by the vast majority of the far right. I've gave you multiple reasons for McCarthy and Skousen not being credible sources.

Free advice from a bed wetting liberal queer....If you attempt to buttress an argument (well you didn't really make an argument - just posted a statement from someone else) by using the research of people that have no credibility, you do your arguments no favors.

Just sayin'

(08-13-2011 09:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

I doubt seriously that most in the gay community are as vocal and principled as our friend Tom. I believe that most just simply want to live their lives quietly and peacefully like the rest of us. I understand the problem with the legal aspects of marriage and I see no reason why civil unions would not be acceptable to the vast majority of the gay community. I think Tom is in the minority in his views.

I agree with Sum and you. Unfortunately, we only hear from the in-your-face gays. When that happens I usually want to hit them with a bat. The quiet gays that simply act normal and try to fit in are the ones being hurt in all this.

(08-13-2011 11:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:06 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 08:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am a pretty strong proponent of gay rights. I get there out of tolerance, and my generally libertarian philosophy. If you have a different viewpoint from me, it is my duty to tolerate you and your viewpoint, in order that in the end we may all be better off. In return, I expect the same tolerance from you for my point of view.

If you are not willing to extend the same tolerance to me, then I will still have an open mind for your point of view, but I will have very little use for you individually.

Absolutely.

I fail to understand from our friend Tom why "civil unions" would not solve his complaints in regard to sharing the legal benefits of marriage.

If the "real" agenda is sharing the legal benefits of marriage then WTF is the problem with civil unions being that instrument? I have a feeling that there are some radical activists in the gay community that actually have "other" agendas.

For clarity...I support civil unions as the instrument of contract for ALL couples. Marriage can be done at the church of your choice..or..save the money and not bother with a ceremony. That is none of my business.

Wow! Fo! We actually agree on something. But I've yet to see anyone in the gay community that posts on this board willing to accept civil unions. Forcing the Marriage issue definitely intrudes in religous space which is why gubment should change from marriage to civil unions.

Like I said...I question the "real" agenda of any gay activist that would oppose that civil unions be the method of legal marriage for everyone.

BTW...We agree on more than you think....probably 90%.

I have no problem with removing all rights for straight couples married and force them to go to the courthouse for a civil union (which would be open to Gays) in order to get state recognition. Its not going to happen though.

It would require that about 1700 laws on the Federal level alone to be amended. And tens of thousands of state laws. Its just not practical. As far as a 'solution' it works great in theory, but not in political reality.

For purposes of 'protecting marriage', its misguided in my opinion to create civil unions(with less rights and responsibilities) while marriage is still an option. This has been the 'solution' that many states have been moving towards. The problem with this solution is that it is still unequal. Furthermore, since this option is open to straight people, many straights are choosing civil unions rather than marriage. And this is causing marriage rates to drop precipitously in states like California. I don't really have a problem if some couple choose to have 'marriage lite', but if someone wants to protect the institution of marriage, the movement of straight couples to civil unions is fraught with danger for marriage.

So I see marriage equality as the solution that makes the most sense.

I call fabrics. The only thing that needs to change is to allow gays to acquire the govt. license like everyone else. You want equality?...I cant see how it could be any clearer or easier. I'm sorry Tom...but...I am beginning to smell a agenda beyond this issue. I was afraid of this from the start. My suggestion is to take the path of least resistance and take it. Unless something is going on in Alabama that I am not aware of....what you are seeking is NEVER going to happen there in your lifetime. That is just being realistic.

(08-13-2011 12:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 11:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

No..I'd argue that silence is the main obstacle.

Look, the dominionists/fundys are going to throw a fit everytime any issue of gay equality is debated.

So do gay supporters

Quote: It doesn't matter what the issue is or how reasonable it is.

QED.

Quote:Justice delayed is justice DENIED.

Quote:And finally, we'd like tolerance and acceptance. But we demand equal treatment under the law.

You have equal treatment, that's been proven deductively. You want special treatment.

I didn't realize that I can fire my evangelical employees simply because they are evangelicals? (Actually I can't - its against the law to discriminate against persons because of their religion). Why can evangelicals discriminate against Gay employees (They can in 29 states - including Ohio)? I support non-discrimination laws, but they need to be consistent.

Please don't make the silly argument that because I can marry a woman that Gay marriage bans don't discriminate. Unless you want me marrying your daughter. I didn't think so.

I don't think you get our point on the issue of 'throwing a fit'. Actually we do get loud and obnoxious. We know that we're being loud and obnoxious. We'd rather not have to....but we will insist that our issues be debated front and center.. if we could keep pressure on these issues being nice and quiet, then we'd do that. We just don't have that option.

(08-13-2011 12:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 11:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:06 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 08:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Absolutely.

I fail to understand from our friend Tom why "civil unions" would not solve his complaints in regard to sharing the legal benefits of marriage.

If the "real" agenda is sharing the legal benefits of marriage then WTF is the problem with civil unions being that instrument? I have a feeling that there are some radical activists in the gay community that actually have "other" agendas.

For clarity...I support civil unions as the instrument of contract for ALL couples. Marriage can be done at the church of your choice..or..save the money and not bother with a ceremony. That is none of my business.

Wow! Fo! We actually agree on something. But I've yet to see anyone in the gay community that posts on this board willing to accept civil unions. Forcing the Marriage issue definitely intrudes in religous space which is why gubment should change from marriage to civil unions.

Like I said...I question the "real" agenda of any gay activist that would oppose that civil unions be the method of legal marriage for everyone.

BTW...We agree on more than you think....probably 90%.

I have no problem with removing all rights for straight couples married and force them to go to the courthouse for a civil union (which would be open to Gays) in order to get state recognition. Its not going to happen though.

It would require that about 1700 laws on the Federal level alone to be amended. And tens of thousands of state laws. Its just not practical. As far as a 'solution' it works great in theory, but not in political reality.

For purposes of 'protecting marriage', its misguided in my opinion to create civil unions(with less rights and responsibilities) while marriage is still an option. This has been the 'solution' that many states have been moving towards. The problem with this solution is that it is still unequal. Furthermore, since this option is open to straight people, many straights are choosing civil unions rather than marriage. And this is causing marriage rates to drop precipitously in states like California. I don't really have a problem if some couple choose to have 'marriage lite', but if someone wants to protect the institution of marriage, the movement of straight couples to civil unions is fraught with danger for marriage.

So I see marriage equality as the solution that makes the most sense.

I call fabrics. The only thing that needs to change is to allow gays to acquire the govt. license like everyone else. You want equality?...I cant see how it could be any clearer or easier. I'm sorry Tom...but...I am beginning to smell a agenda beyond this issue. I was afraid of this from the start. My suggestion is to take the path of least resistance and take it. Unless something is going on in Alabama that I am not aware of....what you are seeking is NEVER going to happen there in your lifetime. That is just being realistic.

Oh if civil unions were an option in Alabama we'd take it. How do you think a civil unions bill would do in the tea party legislature ?

Now, we wouldn't take it and stop unless all of the benefits of marriage were accrued only to those that were civil unioned.

But its really a theoretical exercise in Alabama. We'll be fighting this one using the 'full faith and credit clause' in the Federal Courts.