You make a good point. On one hand, obtaining “separate but equal” rights in the interim might have worked, and paved the way for greater acceptance over time. On the other hand, it could have set back true equality for decades in that the opponents of equal marriage would say “We already gave you civil unions, so stop complaining.”

I’m not sure what the correct strategy is. While I oppose Proposition 8, I actually am of the opinion that now is not the right time to be pushing these court cases and ballot initiatives, and that in 10-15 more years the demographics will have shifted sufficiently in favor of equal marriage that it will make sense. Of course, Obama’s appointees to the Supreme Court may mean that the equal marriage proponents will finally argue Federal equal protection and/or full faith and credit, permitting certiorari.

Domestic partnerships and marriage are NOT the same thing. The former gives far more rights than the latter, and until a large number of states allow gay marriage, there is no way that gay marriage will be recognized by the federal government.

Simple example: I have a gay friend who has been in a 11 year long relationship with another man. One of them owns the house they live in. Married couples are allowed to transfer unlimited amounts of property between them and when a spouse dies, he or she inherits all the money tax free.

One of them had much more money than the other, so he pays $800 a year for an insurance policy that would pay the taxes incurred if he died — otherwise his partner would be on the street after being forced to sell their house!

Domestic partnerships don’t help with this problem, but legalizing gay marriage does.

As to why this is a civil rights issue, it’s simple: a right (that of marriage) was legally granted to homosexual people, in order to ensure that all citizens of California had the same rights regarding marriage. Prop 8 was designed to remove that legally granted right. Imagine now if a proposition had been designed to take away the right of blacks to vote, or the right of women to own property, or the right of any other minority group – would you be questioning whether that was a civil rights issue? I’m going to guess that you’re smart enough to answer no, you wouldn’t question, and so it should be with gay marriage.

If anyone’s still struggling with why gay people can’t just be happy with domestic partnerships, go and attend a gay wedding somewhere (e.g. Canada), witness the emotion, the love, the hope, everything that happens in any marriage ceremony, and you’ll understand.

I’m sorry, gays are just going to have to get used to the fact that they’re different, and accept that that fact will never change. Homosexuals being different doesn’t bother me, they’re people too and deserve all of the love, compassion, and equality that everyone else has.

I have yet to see how calling a civil union a marriage (changing the definition of marriage to include couples that cannot perform the task that was the reason for government tampering with the union of people in the first place) is a civil rights issue.

These arguments regarding biology, too, go to the polygamy question and how a polygamous marriage might be a marriage, while civil unions might still not be. That said, I don’t think that polygamy is marriage, it is polygamy. And bigamy isn’t marriage, it’s bigamy. If these things were to become legal (which I hope they never do), they should be called by different names because they are different things.

As to the original post. If you read carefully, at the end of the legislation pertaining to religious entities using their money to influence legislation, it actually says to support or work against any CANDIDATE. What my issue is, is that there has already been an opion given by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, on the marriage issue. I think the bottom line issue here is the right of the States to govern themselves, although I was surprised at the outcome of Prop 8 vote and think the courts ruling should be upheld.

[Editor: If you read carefully you'll notice there are two prohibitions: substantial activity attempting to influence legislation (which I made bold), and endorsement of or opposition to a candidate (which I did not). It is only the first part I am concerned with.]

I do think an investigation should be led into political undertakings to advance religious doctrine into government. Prefer tax status should be for humanitarian benefit and keeping these institutions going.