Gandhi did not bring down an empire by compromising on what was rightfully the Indian people’s.

The Empire fell because World War II economically ruined the U.K. and we could not afford to maintain the Empire. Even Gandhi had to compromise on partition, it was the price of independence.

In a separate point, let us assume that you are correct and that the enactment of Civil Unions delays full legal equality*. Some of us may consider that a delay to be justified by actual practical legal rights now, especially for couples affected by illness, separation, death, etc. for whom these rights would make an actual difference to their lives now. I, certainly, am glad of the fact that I am now planning on entering a Civil Partnership with my boyfriend rather than wondering when the HM Government might bring a marriage equality bill before Parliament.

*I agree with Mr Kincaid that the evidence is against that assumption.

Gandhi did not bring down an empire by compromising on what was rightfully the Indian people’s. MLK did not bring change by taking less than what was rightfully owed to the millions of people that were suffering under the crush of segregation and oppression; but what do I know?

Again celebrate all you want; it is only matter of time before we can all be civili united and are told: What the he’ll more you want? But again, what do I know

Yes your opinions are yours, yours, yours, but your assumptions are just wrong, wrong, wrong:

What I am telling you is that history has told us that the moment a group takes something less than what they want in order to “make a gain”, the non supporters will believe that the goal has been reached and will refuse, or be surprised when said group demands the rest.

So far there have been civil unions in:

Vermont – from 2000 through 2009, at which point they were replaced by marriage.

Connecticut - from 2005 through 2010, at which point they were replaced by marriage.

New Hampshire – from 2007 through 2010, at which point they were replaced by marriage.

New Jersey – since 2006. Last year there was an attempt to change them for marriage, but it was unsuccessful. There will be other attempts once Gov. Christie is no longer in office. Equality NJ is currently suing the state for marriage.

Illinois – not yet signed. Already folks like Mayor Daly are talking about the eventuality of marriage.

I am saying that NONE of the legislatures (except for maybe CA) is talking about Gay marriage but about Civil Unions. Why?

Actually, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island are talking about marriage and not civil unions.

Why is it that our representatives are talking about the goal being Civil Unions and not marriage?

They aren’t.

Why is it that all of a sudden our elected representatives talk about how they are OK with Civil Unions but not with Marriage?

Because some of them are OK with gay couples having the same rights, but are still hung up on the word “marriage”

Who told then that Civil Unions were an acceptable form?

Everyone. Until we are able to get full recognition, everyone (but you) wants to get what we can get.

Civil Unions are not ultimately acceptable, but they are infinitely better than the currently achievable alternative of nothing at all.

What I am telling you is that history has told us that the moment a group takes something less than what they want in order to “make a gain”, the non supporters will believe that the goal has been reached and will refuse, or be surprised when said group demands the rest.

I am saying that NONE of the legislatures (except for maybe CA) is talking about Gay marriage but about Civil Unions. Why? Why is it that our representatives are talking about the goal being Civil Unions and not marriage? Why is it that all of a sudden our elected representatives talk about how they are OK with Civil Unions but not with Marriage? Who told then that Civil Unions were an acceptable form?

If taking less than what you expect “for now” is not settling, then what is it?

This has been explained several time:

This is my, MY, MY, MY opinion and nobody else’s.

I have made it pretty clear that i am speaking for myself and how I see it. I have said it several times that if anyone wants to celebrate to have at it all day long.

Being happy about civil unions, happy to have SOME recognition, and SOME benefits and rights

DOES NOT

DOES NOT

DOES NOT

equal “settling”.

This is the major flaw in your black and white worldview. You do not see the reality of the wide grey area.

You lose credibility when you equate civil unions to slavery. And none of your complaints – though valid – would be addressed had Illinois voted for state recognized marriages instead of civil unions.

Many thanks for your reply. To be honest it sounds like you care more about the principle of equality before the law than the actual legal protections afforded by marriage (or Civil Unions). While that is a perfectly legitimate point of view, please don’t be surprised if others are happy (but not satisfied) that they are now less unequal before the law and have many of the protections of marriage.