Margie – like Sarah Palin and thousands of others who “have gay friends” – defines friendship as a one-way street.

They say things like “my friends know what I believe” and “if you’re my friend you accept me and my beliefs”. They care only what they can get from a friendship – i.e. validation.

For me, if you are my friend, you don’t do things which hurt me or which make my life unnecessarily difficult. If you do these things, you are not a friend but merely an acquaintance at best.

What she did, if gay people WERE her friends, is essentially say they were only good enough as long as she could profit from them, and they unquestioningly didn’t challenge her betrayal.
If gay people REALLY were her friends, she’d have understood the stakes involved in being able to marry, and gladly would have respected and appreciated equal rights that supported their very lives.
And considering the slanderous and lying responses of her supporters, you would have thought SHE was the one betrayed and not the other way around.

What all of this does, is prove the moral character of a person. It tests their character as true, or phony. Whether they have one face, or two.
Too bad if they don’t like what it makes them look like, and if they can face anyone who cares and how they’ll do so.
It also separates the courageous from the cowardly.
And liars from the truthful.
Why would someone of PROFESSED sterling character be afraid of that test?

I think that perhaps the best response is to ask why conservative friends believe that there needs to be distinction AND, if so, why it is that heterosexuals not take civil unions instead.

None will leap at this option. Because they know that civil unions are inferior. Intuitively.

So then just ask them why it is that they insist that someone else accept what they would refuse. That is the heart of the issue.

If you try to discuss structure, then the solution is to revise structure. If you put this in terms of reality – that civil unions exist solely for one purpose: to delegate gay couples to a lesser status – then they must then address that they hold this attitude.

Remember, denying equality is not about gay people. It is about those who don’t want gay people to be equal. You are just signing up for what everyone else gets and have no obligation to explain yourself. They are the ones who need to explain why they are denying to you what they value for themselves.

Now many will be fine with believing that you are inferior to them. Some will happily tell you so.

At which point you can either agree with them that you are inferior or let them know that as your friendship moves forward (or dissolves), you recognize that they hold you in contempt and that this character flaw in them impacts your valuation of them. Remember, this is about them, not you.

What you CANNOT do is pretend that you “agree to disagree” or that their support of discrimination is okay on any level. To do so provides them with all the ammunition that they need to dismiss your concerns. Because if, like Sarah Palin’s hypothetical gay friends, you don’t take your worth seriously, why should they?

Conservatives who are open to hearing an answer to this question, and there are many, are pretty immune the standard arguments of equality etc when it hinges on the use of a particular word. They don’t disagree about that per se, but they’re MUCH more swayed by practical considerations – including the notion that separate institutions in separate buckets means that our marriages can be repealed at any time by plebiscite or fiat, or that the IRS doesn’t necessarily treat them the same, or that in many states they don’t do the same thing at all.

When they realize that the two are completely separate – and I swear to you that many ears are open – their response is often “well, that’s just stupid, why can’t they just… ” And then we win.

We’re making our case. We’re winning over our friends and allies. But we need to have a practical bumper-sticker length message out there: Civil Unions are not the same as marriage structurally or legally, and the sooner this gets resolved, the sooner we can get back to guns and football and complaining about big government. OK, that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker. But I’m open to editorial assistance there.

http://www.njdems.org/

…and BTW, Governor Helicopter/Heart Attack/Jackie Gleason does not have the physical wear-with-all to run for President,…..so maybe the Republicans will have to fall back on Liar Rubio – haha!

Warmest Personal Regards,

In any case, Christie will be forced to make a decision.

Isn’t New Jersey one of those states with Civil Union laws that basically grant gay couples everything that married couples get (on the state level)? Marriage equality is the logical next step to lobby for.

New Jersey currently has everything-but-the-name civil unions. Marriage really is the only next step.