Personally I think Civil Unions are a cop-out, it smacks of separate but equal. The whole thing is a whirlwind of bullshit and semantics.

If they're the same thing why not call them the same thing? Can anyone tell me how they are different, other than one is for gays and one is for straights?

Is the difference between the two religion? I know they not exactly on ever street corner, but I know there are churches that will marry gay people, should the government be allowed to tell them they can't or that if they do they have to call it a civil union? Can straight people get a civil union, I mean it'd only be fair right? Maybe that should be the deciding factor, religion = marriage, no religion = civil union or government should call it civil union, but religious institutions marriage?

Can someone give me a rational for having two of the same thing but calling them different names? Is it okay to call a water fountain a water fountain when white people drink from it, but call it a water squirter when a black person drinks from it?

I suppose I understand its progress that there's a presidential candidate with a good chance of winning who supports anything in the form of gays getting recognition from the government if they decide to form a partnership, but at the same time its maddening see them call it something else just so Joe Average Voter isn't too frightened to vote for the candidate.

Excuse me if my rant was meandering, and nonsensical at times, but I have a hard time putting together a rational argument against something I see as insanely irrational.

I agree wholeheartedly, but when you're a politician looking for bipartisan support and attempting to appeal to a widely polarised population, this is the only plausible course of action you can propose. The older people get, the more dead set they are in their ways and their supposed moral values, it takes time to usher in progressive ideas even when it comes down to basic equality.

Perhaps America is just not ready for gay marriage?

Sorry couldn't help myself

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Civil unions should apply to everyone and should be between 2 or more consenting human adults. That should be the legal union that applies to things like inheritance, parent rights etc.

The government should not be prohibiting the spiritual bond of marriage in any way. People should be allowed to marry their dogs or kitchen appliances if desired - just no legal rights attached without a signed civil union contract. (paw prints don't count)

He plays this very political, he supports what matters, equal rights, while not handing "he supports gay marriage" to the GOP. Does this smack of pandering, or pragmatic politics? I tend toward the second, but it concerns me , and I'll be watching how he addresses this issue.

Myself and my wife were married in a civil union. We aren't religious, and if the church has a problem with gays getting married then I think Obama here has the only right answer.

Civil ceremonies for marriage are pretty commonplace regardless of sexual orientation.

Christians don't believe in sex.

How is gay marriage even an issue for a presidential candidate of the USA? Wouldn't people want to hear about more pressing issues like the economy, the school system, healthcare, the military and occupation in Iraq, and exactly how the candidate proposes to deal with it?
To me, the only thing a candidate needs to say about the right for gays to get married is "Personally I'm for it, but it's not my place to dictate what rules the church goes by when deciding who gets to marry". If their religious establishment doesn't allow it, then why not go get the equivalent to married in a different religious place of worship, or just sign a form of partnership like the vast majority of non-religious in Europe apparently does (or go to Vegas for heaven's sake).
Now, if there's the matter of gays not being allowed to sign a partnership because the bureaucracy specifically says they can't then that's something else altogether, but even though it's unfair to gays there really are lots of more pressing things the candidates could talk about. Dare I say more important things?
If I understand the general bible belt mentality correctly, it's not like it'll make any difference, religion-wise, if the two same-sex persons live and have intercourse together without being married. They'd already be living in sin for other reasons.

it makes sense to give those kinds of unions the same rights first, then moving on to calling it official marriage on the future. smooth transition is the way (a lot of people would have outrage over it otherwise, i assume-though i'm not american).

i don't even believe in marriage myself, a ceremony yeah fair enough but why bring laws in to it...

obama is making more sense than he used to, perhaps has more confidence or something

Actually I think Obama has said he used to be against gay unions or marriages, but he has since changed his mind. I think that's great, and I think that it at least shows he's not the kind that will stick to a position no matter what counter arguments or evidence may be offered. I also understand the wisdom in a candidate that wants a real chance at the white house at calling for civil unions rather than marriage. I think calling it marriage would scare off just enough undecideds to cost him the election, sad, but true...

I religious gay couples could still get married through a church so they can have a religious union, and then get a civil union so they can get all the government/legal benefits of being "married/unionized". But anyway you look at it the government is still telling religious institutions who they can and can't marry officially. Its certainly better than nothing and hopefully in time people as a collective will realize how moronic it is to allow that separation. Truthfully, as an atheist I'd rather have a civil union than a marriage, though I wouldn't scoff if someone called it a marriage.

Anyone catch what that girl yelled out?

>> ^henryholt:
Anyone catch what that girl yelled out?


She said "LGBTQY".

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by geo321.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.