Since it is an article of faith that supporting marriage equality is political poison while civil

unions are OK. I have one simple question, what evidence do we have of this? Banning civil unions, with one notable exception, did no worse at the ballot than simply banning gay marriage. Ohio, Michigan, and Virgina had highly restrictive amendments that banned not only gay marriage and civil unions but also banned private contracts that approximated marriage. Pennsylvania had a far less restrictive version. There was little to no difference in percentage voting for or against. The only exception to this, Arizona, was largely because it was perceived that the initiative would have prevented elderly straight couples from getting benefits. In every other case it honestly appears that regardless of terminology support marriage type rights for gays has about the same effect. So seriously, what evidence is there for this article of faith. Why isn't it like say capital punishment or late term abortion where our politicians can survive despite opposing the people on it?

edit to fix list of states

religions get to make their own rules, they even get to decide which of those rules they want to follow. I don't understand why people want to be part of a group that looks down at them but that's up to the individual and I don't need to understand it.

But if you have to get "married" in a church I'd better let my husband know that we've been "living in sin" for 24 years.

I think if they are going to let the churches decide who gets married then they should change the license to a civil union license instead of a marriage license. If that happens, head to your nearest UU church and get married if that's your desire.

"We work to promote acceptance, inclusion, understanding, and equity for bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender persons of all colors, races, and ethnicities, both within the UUA and in society at large. We are committed to protecting the civil and legal rights of BGLT people and families across the country. Unitarian Universalists have been at the forefront of the same-sex marriage debates, advocating for the right for each person to marry the partner of his or her choice."
http://www.uua.org/visitors/justicediversity/6252.shtml

I am asking politically. I can't really see vast numbers of people who a) are against same sex marriage enough to vote against our candidate solely due to that but b) either are in favor of or at least not opposed to civil unions.

so they wouldn't be voting solely on the anti-same sex marriage idea, it's just another close minded stick they right wingers prod these people with.
I think that many people that were originally opposed to same sex marriage did so because humans hate change but now that the right has created this fight over what should be a no brainer, the idea has had time to bounce around in peoples heads and they are getting used to the idea. The residual idea of marriage being a religious institution that they should control stays with them but they are willing to go with the idea of civil unions.

that's the problem. Whether or not they will admit it outloud. There are 300 million in this country. 1.5 million of those are gay. Therein lies the problem really. You just need more people to speak out for it. Oh, and I don't believe it's all about religion either.

*the figure for gays is the only estimate I could find on the net.

just like people are opposed to abortion or in favor of the DP. What I don't see is a large group of people opposed enough to gay marriage to be single issue voters on that alone but not opposed enough to settle for civil unions.

They don't just take anyone who walks in off the street. It's quite an involved process. And they turn people down quite regularly.

But with the state. But I don't expect intelligence from DU members who spout Freeper talking points.

Federal and state governments have gone out of their way to legislate based on one's participation in a church ritual. And only one church ritual, because there's no law on the books that would alter one's citizenship based upon your method of baptism -- but I don't want to give them any ideas.

Marriage is a sacrement of the church. The church can decide who gets married and who doesn't and if you don't like your church's approach to this issue, you can change your denomination or your congregation. Government has no business decided to recognize the sacrements of some churches and not recognize the sacrements of others. Personally, I don't think the government has any business recognizing the sacrements of ANY church.

So that being said, the real issue in the political arena is whether the government should recognize ANY union of any two people, recognize the unions of SOME people, or simply not recognize any unions at all. For that last one, in short, the concept of marriage does not exist under ANY statute -- which would probably put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business. So there's an upside.

Especially state by state polls would be interesting. Those against it are probably in red states anyway. Polls in swing states would be interesting. Clearly the campaigns think it would hurt them to espouse it.

I admit, I don't believe, maybe out of self interest, that there are a significant number of people opposed enough to gay marriage to vote against a candidate on that issue alone but able to tolerate totally equal civil unions. That really doesn't make sense.

So the civil union thing just seems messy and to open up new legal issues. And if a person is OK with the civil unions, why be against gay marriage? Maybe some sort of preoccupation with still keeping something aside only for straights but still not wanting to leave gay people out completely? Hard to say. Maybe they are afraid of an imagined complex slippery slope that polygamists will be next and that is too complex to deal with.