Reply #13: I don't think we should, but it's still something we'll have to [View All]

[kang]

deal w/politically in a smart way. It's unfortunate, but alot of states have large socially conservative populations. I think what we need to do is the same divide conquer strategy we're trying to do w/guns right now. We're not against gun collectors and hunters, but why in earth does somebody need a AK-47 or other assault weapon. Separate the extremists from the more moderate members of their group.

With Gay Civil Unions, I think we say that the gov't is simply recognizing equal rights for all couples, but that the question of calling it "marriage" is really a religious/cultural issue that the gov't has no business with. I know that this might be a watered down position, but I personally rather see those rights won and it being "officially" called civil unions (for now) and what's to stop people from taking ownership of their own relationship and calling it marriage? That way, it's harder for the Christian base to get fired up since they still have their precious marriage label and can feel like their own religious values aren't being infringed on (the more moderates in the group that is). If in fact they're claiming that all "marriages" are religious matters, then the state shouldn't even recognize heterosexual marriages and only recognize Civil Unions. sorry I'm a lawyer and tend to rant. You all get my point...i hope.