Great questions, Skunks.
Percecption is everything. Isn't that what is often said?

From many Christians' perspective, gay rights activists are trying to harm the Christian cummunity for their non-exceptance of them now, and for their persecution of them in the past. Right or wrong, they are threatened by making the the institution of marriage anything other than what it is now....one man, one woman. The "moderate" Christians or even "moderate" Catholics tend to be sympathic to giving gays rights under the law but are uncomfortable with including gay marriage with the traditional definition of marriage. Might this be why the consitutional amendment failed while the majority of Americans seem to oppose it?

NPR Poll: Gay Marriage Sharply Divides Likely Voters

"The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it."

Enter Stage Right - Traditionalists must revise gay marriage lexicon

"Similarly, what we seek is not so much to "ban" anything as to preserve the existing, traditional definition of marriage. This is a debate between those who want to change what marriage means and those who believe there is value in keeping it the way it is."

If the term marriage is more a religious term than anything else, why would having two separate but equal terms be so terrible? Because the phrase infers some kind of illegal descrimination? I don't know?

I'm not sure what you mean by "more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites". It would seem to me that the reverse is true. One would normally be more likely to tell a person's skin color than what their orientation is. I must be missing something here.

The difference is skin color is not something you can change or choose. To the Christians, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If it's a choice you can chose not to do it. If you chose not to do it, you wont get grief from them.:)

Tangible is the wrong word. Significant?

Ultimately, I'm wondering if one could create a "separate but equal" homosexual version of marriage without being a bigot. Segregating minorities is frowned upon, but I think there might be room to argue that it's justified in this case.

There are differences between people of various skin colors, but ultimately they're relevant only in limited contexts. A genetic predisposition to this or that, neither of which is 'cooties.' Skin color is a very in-your-face identifier, which makes it easy to group people by. But it doesn't carry much meaning in general, except as a side effect of the groupings (culture by forced association, at least in America).

Homosexuality is more significant. As you said, any visual clues stem from action; it's not something you'll necessarily pick up on right away. Strictly speaking it carries meaning in the context of pair-bonding. Stereotypically, fashion, hygeine, etc follow. These are broader, if still not very general, contexts.

If we say that racism is bad because it takes a visual identifier that is linked only with minor differences and applies it outside the scope of those differences, it follows that "good" segregation would be based on major differences and would be limited to the scope of those differences. Racism in the US was a minor difference applied to everything.

But if there are significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, ones that would influence marriage, it would be a good reason to create a separate version of marriage for them.

I guess this is what everybody's been arguing all along. I just took a "shortcut", as it were. And I spent a lot of time writing this, so I'm going to tw it up (beware the vulcans with smoking aluminum gun barrels!), except he typically doesn't change his mind at the last paragraph:

I don't think there is enough of a distinction. The relationships are certainly different, but the difference doesn't matter. Unless there would be a functional, and not descriptive, difference between a homosexual civil union and a heterosexual marriage, creating the alternative version would be a superficial waste of time and, by my earlier definition, bigoted.

Nobody's asking them to have gay marriages themselves. If they want to pretend to live in a world without gays, I see no need to help them do so. Your argument would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.
So, what we have here, is a situation where 30 percent support the legalization of something which could help about 10% (or so) and harms none. Sounds like a reason to legalize it.It is not more a religious term than anything else. Civil marriage is not associated in any way with religion, except that clergy are among those allowed to file the forms in proxy for a couple.

Here’s a thought. Oh, shut up, I have one occasionally. :biggrindu
Anyway, a dual system of: 1,“Marriage”= religious ceremony. 2,“United”(or something) = civil ceremony.
The trick is, it’s your choice. By having two names it declares to the world what your preference is. Now that some religions will marry queers, both the straights and queers will have a choice, and your choice won’t label (libel) you, by sexual orientation. Nobody should have a “legitimate” bitch.

I think Wolf has had the best solution thus far: replace "marriage" with "civil union" across the board.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice...well, unless you're bisexual. Think about it...why would anyone CHOOSE to be ostracized or discriminated against?

Slang using NPR to back him up...Goddamn...I've seen everything now. :)

The real issue seems to be the term "marriage." From what I've seen, civil union support and opposition is almost evenly divided, but when it comes to marriage, it becomes lopsided against. My concern with "civil unions" for gays and lesbians and "marriage" for straights is that it smacks of "separate, but equal," which worked really well with Blacks back in the day.

Oh yeah? Explain Goths, then. :biggrin:

"A phase"...besides, being a Goth is cool again. :)

You bring up an interesting part of this discussion to me anyway. Modern liberalism and conservatism are at fault here. We have the collision of two statist mindsets with this and many other issues. The same kind of thinking that prevents Slang from leaving his pistol in his glovebox when driving into NY, finds a role for government in marriage beyond enforcing the contract. It's more wide open in California because CA, moderate Republican governor not withstanding, has more statist extremists of both camps than other states. This is what the LP needs to take advantage of. Once we get people to respect each others rights and preferences the Libertarian Party suddenly looks like the home of moderation.

Uuummm... When was goth ever cool?

Awww...look at Griff showing his age and hillbillyness!

Actually the hills a full of these pathetic Goth types... sad really. :(

And this is the most difficult part of the problem...and I don't think it's possible...ever.

Well, if I wasn't a fan of the country, and I lived in the middle of fucking nowhere and had nothing to do but drive around town on Saturday night and listen to Siouxsie and the Banshees or Bauhaus CDs, I'd probably be goth too. :)

So if I started distributing bus tickets to Philly, I'd still be respecting their preferences? :)

Absolutely...we'll take 'em! They'll fit in nicely with the skaters at LOVE Park.