DR DER BRUCER - *Which relates to the question I've been coming across quite frequently in this discussion - and which I mentioned earlier: Is it really possible to separate Church from State? and vice versa?
**And it's also the one issue I have with gay couples truly wanting a "full marriage" in the eyes of the State and the Church. Yes, I understand growing up Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, etc., and wanting to be married in a church by a priest, but just like heterosexual couples, they would still need to have a civil ceremony to make it legal. I know some people are upset that President-elect Obama does not support "gay marriage" - which he has clearly stated is based on his religious beliefs, but he does support equal rights for homosexual couples on a civil level... Again, how fully can you separate State and Church?
Separation is actually quite simple: leave the Sacrament of Marriage to the church - get the state out of the "marriage business".
Have the state deal with the legal aspects of familial units by enacting gender-neutral civil unions.
Support for the "separate but equal" civil unions approach does not quite make it (unless you amend all civil codes to draw a total equivalency between "partner" and "spouse").
Actually, the position for gay couples in CA is still pretty good - the existing civil union statutes even provide state tax breaks - and Prop 8 doesn't take away many tangibles.
The situation is much different in Florida where Prop 2 attempts to remove the existing protections afforded to domestic partnerships.
For most gay citizens, the full civil union's route would be a giant step forward in Equality. In CA the frustration is great because we are so close to true full equality.
I would be most content if the Federal Government would leave the control of defining familial units to the states. If a state says you are a member of a "union", then you get Federal treatment equal to married folk (Tax benefits, SS survivor benefits, etc).
der Brucer
