In a word, “No”.

Larry, you seem to be suggesting we should outcompete marriage by creating our own institution.

That sounds all well and good until you get to reality — what legal weight will this newfangled institution have?

As Kith pointed out to you, this newfangled institution is ill equiped to safeguard ourselves or our loved ones. Especially in those states that say “No marriage for gays and nothing that sounds or acts like marriage for gays.”

Sorry, but taking our ball and going home isn’t going to fix this. I’m not going to settle for seperate but (un)equal, so I’m certainly not going to waste my time and efforts trying to create it from scratch.

This idea is about as useful as the dude who goes from blog to blog proclaiming that gays should stop paying taxes…cause you know, people respect that so much!

Here in Canada, it took OVER THIRTY YEARS of political activism (including court challenges) for same-sex marriage to finally be legalized at both the provincial and federal levels. So, Americans, DON’T GIVE UP! It will be achieved eventually, inevitably! You deserve nothing less!

Here’s what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to say:

[...] top leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promise not to lurch to the left and give in to pent-up demands from party liberals.

“The country must be governed from the middle,” Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday. “You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people.”[...]

In the back of my mind, I knew that they were probably too good to be true. But, I wasn’t expecting them to reveal their true intentions so soon! It’s not even 2009 yet!

We’re on our own, kiddos! Don’t look to our politicians (Democrat or Republican) for our salvation. Because all they can deliver us into is eternal enslavement!

Oh Canada, Oh Canada…

You describe McCain’s position as: “McCain opposes having Massachusetts tell Alabama what marriage they have to recognize. That’s what he said. And that’s what he indicated that he would consider an Amendment about – not what the federal government recognizes. He has NOT EVER considered a federal amendment to dictate to Massachusetts that they cannot recognize marriage and has, indeed, proclaimed so on the floor of the Senate.”

McCain is not an idiot. He knows that this position cannot be supported by the current US Constitution, because it is a flat out violation of the “Full faith and credit clause.”

Social conservatives also know this. That is why they would like an Amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage.

McCain’s position isn’t a position. It is a convoluted dodge, designed to satisfy everyone. But it doesn’t satisfy me or the Religious Right. Why do you think he felt he had to pick Palin?

I’m not saying that McCain supports any form of repeal of DOMA. I’m saying that the argument from a states’ rights position would be more appealing to McCain than to Obama.

While I agree that for many Republicans, states’ rights has no more sway than less spending or smaller government (look at Bush’s wild spending and increased centralized government). But oddly enough, for all of McCain’s flaws, that is actually one thing he does believe.

I admit, I probably didn’t read what you said as carefully as I should have, and I thought you were suggesting that McCain would support a full repeal of DoMA (which he clearly does not) and that Obama does not support such a repeal. What you seem to be saying is that McCain would be okay with a repeal that allows for federal recognition (do you have any evidence for this? It seems unlikely to me, but I admit he might have made a statement I overlooked) as long as it ensures states don’t have to recognize out-of-state marriages.

While I better understand and appreciate where you’re coming from on this, I think that “states’ rights” is a red herring for all but a handful of conservatives, especially given the insane consolidation of executive power during the Bush years that’s gone unprotested among all but a handful of principled conservative thinkers and gadflies like Ron Paul. I just don’t think you’ll get much traction there. Certainly not any worth the sacrifices and compromises we’d be making to back such a measure. But, that said, I certainly encourage attempts to reach out to principled, moderate Republicans– I just think appeals to basic human decency and fairness will probably do more good, and have a wider appeal, in the long run.

If Barry were around, he would have soundly and repeatedly endorsed NO on ALL of these Constitutional amendments.

You misstate both what McCain has said and the point I’m making.

McCain opposes having Massachusetts tell Alabama what marriage they have to recognize. That’s what he said. And that’s what he indicated that he would consider an Amendment about – not what the federal government recognizes. He has NOT EVER considered a federal amendment to dictate to Massachusetts that they cannot recognize marriage and has, indeed, proclaimed so on the floor of the Senate.

Further, I don’t pretend that McCain favors marriage equality. He does not. Nor is he going to be a champion for marriage equality in the Senate.

But, unlike Palin, he does have principles which guide his decisions. He favors states’ rights. And it is in that context that I’m saying that an appeal to states’ rights may be convincing.

As I understand his politics, Obama is not a proponant of states’ rights. And as such, this particular argument may not have so great an appeal (which is exactly and all that I said).

Don’t read more into my statement than is there.

And it is not nutty upside-downism to state that SOME Republicans may be approachable with an appeal either to federalism (states’ rights) or to fairness. Which means that I think some could side with us on the States’ Rights direction or the Piecemeal scenario. Perhaps even Senator McCain (though I make no claim of such).

Please don’t misunderstand me. The Republican Party as a whole has written off principled ideals in favor of religiously-driven outcomes. They have become the Party that finds Sarah Palin’s vapid “values” campaign worth rallying around. We will not get a majority of Republicans on any of the above proposals.

But we may get some.

That’s real easy to say until a hatched faced nurse tells you Gina she can’t see Laura on her death bed.

That’s real easy to say until you watch your family home parted out by your in-laws who successfully challenged your SO’s will in court.

That’s real easy to say until your SO runs to another state with your child of 7 years and you lose all claim to it because she’s found Jesus and is now straight.

The cost of this is profound, it is not about monetary benefits, it is about universal recognition, it is about stopping legally someone who would chose to ignore your partnership, the word marriage carries that legal weight, no one would dare challenge the word marriage, civil union may just as well be two people rooting together in the mud, in the eyes of many. All non-profits and lawyers can declare it to be so, but without legal universal protection, without the federal government standing up and saying “This is real” no deceleration, document, living trust, will, ect will carry the full weigh of their words for gay partners and they fall to the mercy of the “good will” of people and that well has proven to be very shallow.