I'd like your opinion on a bunch of gay marriage issues.

I just had a bit of a heated argument with a friend who's also gay. And we feel the same about nearly everything, but have different points of view. We covered a lot of topics.

The thing that touched it all off was that we were discussing the McGreevey deal. I said that while it was sad that he had to hide his sexuality, and I respected his decision to come out, I don't respect all the other stuff. Namely, fooling his wife and family by marrying and having kids and then essentially ruining everything... But he said that plenty of gay men or women enter a marriage first then they realize they're gay so there's no reason for people to be saying that he deceived his family. What do you think about that? Was that his case, too? He realized everything after the fact, and just didn't come through with it until now?

We both think that the whole affair and sexual harrassment deal are awful and he deserves whatever comes his way b/c of that.

Then I brought up the fact that McGreevey opposed gay marriage. And then he said that plenty of gay folks he knows don't care about gay marriage but are fine with civil unions, b/c they say that marriage is just a word. Then he told me that civil unions are a step in the right direction to marriage. But I'm of the opinion that all we're doing with civil unions is "settling" with the other side and not really demanding equality. I don't think civil unions are even pragmatic b/c they don't get us in the right direction, IMO, b/c I can't see the debate going much farther than that unless we demand marriage right now. I mean, we didn't begin with "Interracial Unions" and then work from there. They demanded their rights.

Whaddya think?

and should cover all the contractural things that the gummint enforces. The whole ceremonial thing belongs in churches.

Either get government enforcement out of the marriage business, or open the contract to everyone nuts enough to enter into it. That's really the choice here. Anything else is unequal protection under the law and unconstitutional.

Since few people particularly want to have their divorces arbitrated by preachers, the way seems clear.

The experience in Canada suggests that there are quite a few straight couples who would opt for the civil contract over the whole baggage laden religious marriage.

by marrying her and having kids, knowing he was gay, there's just no way to know unless you manage to ask him. And even when a gay man or Lesbian already knows they're homosexual and marries to go undercover, I still can't blame them much. If indeed he did know he was gay before marriage, it's not like McGreevey did anything that millions of people haven't felt forced to do. I agree it's sad for the wife and bad for the kids, but it's a social problem much like many others our sick society has. He may carry some blame, but I find it hard to condemn him.

I agree with you on gay marriage vs. civil unions. There is no rational reason to make us accept civil unions. In fact, it costs governments more to have that separate bureaucracy. Just treat us like everyone else, that's all we want.

IF the proposal is civil marriage for EVERYONE. If it is "marriage for the NORMAL people and "civil unions" for those gays, then I am completely against it.

Equal rights for ALL.

As to whether he didn't know he was gay when he was married or did know and married because of social pressure or political expedience, or even if he kind of knew he was gay but thought he could force himself to be straight - no way to know unless he tells. While those things matter greatly to his family and to him, it's going to be less of an issue in the larger world fewer gay people feel they have to have to pretend - to the world or to themselves - to be something other than they are. The number is getting smaller all the time. There is one area where we've made progress.

As to the civil union vs. marriage thing, I can only tell you a concern by a gay lawyer I know. He thinks it's a mistake to be pushing it this fast. One of his concerns is that the anti-gay marriage laws being proposed and put on ballots to combat it are hurting civil unions, too. He's entered into a civil union himself and takes it very seriously and of course, he's a lawyer, so he understands exactly what it means and what it doesn't. He would like to see gay marriage happen. He thinks it's just too soon to be pushing this hard. He'd have liked to see civil unions become more solid and widely accepted first and push for marriage.

I think that civil unions call under the line separate, but equal is inherently unequal. I want to see GLBT get the same rights as the rest of us. Sadly, in presidential politics, I do not think the needle can be threaded. The storm is rising, we will have our day, but today is not it. We can attack from the flank, but our future president should not be called upon to lead a charge against all odds. There is too much at stake in this election. He can not ride in the face of public opinion while the presidency is on the line.
What we can do is fight the battle at the state level. The states must be won before we can win the nation, just like it was with women's suffrage.
I understand that marriage is a touchy word. There are people who will vote for Kerry, but who fundamentally believe that gay marriage is wrong, yet they believe in civil rights and support civil unions. What we need to do is make what the state issues to all be called civil unions and let the churches define marriage as they see fit.

P.S. As for the Gov, he just dealt GLBT rights a blow by helping to fill the warchests of its opponents.