For the record, there are over 1000 rights automatically conferred by legal marriage, it goes WAY beyond not being able to file taxes together. Some of the rights by themselves don't have much of an impact, but collectively they pack a very large punch. (http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html)

Unfortunately the fact that my partner and I are not legally married impacts us in more ways than I like to think about-- taxes, social security, hospital visitation, inheritence, property ownership, insurance coverage and rates, immigration laws, legal rights such as marital priviledge, adoption laws, and overall financial and legal security. We are, under the law, 2 single women who are legal strangers and there is no amount of paperwork that can change that fact. When we have children we consider ourselves "lucky" that our children will legally be connected to both of us through second-parent adoption, however, as parents we will still be "strangers" to one another.

Yes, we have all the legal documents possible (durable power of attorney, health care directives) but that still doesn't provide the legal protection that marriage does, because in certain situations people (such as hospital staff) can dismiss those documents and tell you "sorry, but you're not family." (This has happened to us. We now have an agreement that if one of us is ever hosptialized that we are to lie and say we are sisters. Sick, eh?) We also have to worry about my partner's estranged family, who could legally challenge any arrangements we make if something were to happen to her-- unfortunately the cases where a widowed partner is sued and lost their house to their deceased partner's family are not myths.

I personally don't care if it is called marriage or civil unions or domestic parntnerships EXCEPT that means we'd only be protected while we're in that state-- all we'd have to do is cross a state border and suddenly we're legal strangers again.

First, as a lesbian, it saddens me deeply whenever I hear about LGBT people using the very laws that discriminate against us against one another, especially if it involves a custody battle. They should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

Second, to the previous poster, we have an extra responsibility to protect ourselves by moving to another state? Excuse me, but that's ridiculous on its face. Moving isn't always an option, both financially and emotionally. Would you leave your family, friends or job just to move because you couldn't adopt a child jointly? Just in case you break up some day?

A personal example: I'm married, my partner and I live in a pretty gay-friendly state right now that is set to be one of the next states to have marriage or civil unions. BUT we are planning on moving away to Pennsylvania to be closer to my family because we want to start a family soon, we want to raise our kids with a lot of family around. Pennsylvania at this moment in time has some of the most liberal adoption laws in the country, HOWEVER, the PA legislature is pushing a very broadly-worded anti-gay marriage amendment that *could* undermine all of that. What are we supposed to do? All of the laws are in flux right now, they're unpredictable. We really don't know what is going to happen, but we are willing to move anyways because it is worth the potential discriminiation.

Why is it on us to go somewhere else? If we follow that thinking to its logical conclusion then every single gay couple who lives in the US should either move to Massachusetts or Canada. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

of the campaign seems to be to imply that a man who isn't cleanshaven should be viewed to be just as "frightful" as an unshaven woman. They're trying to take the sexist, bullshit beauty standards placed on women and trying to applying them to men.

It's ridiculous. It just goes to show how women-- almost any woman-- must present herself a certain way or be deemed "repulsive" based on the fact that she doesn't embrace stupid, meaningless standards of beauty. It doesn't matter if the people looking at her aren't her lover and will never touch her or go to bed with her-- if she doesn't abide by the rules then she is deemed disgusting. The issue of hair/shaving is the most obvious, the most visible sexist standard of beauty in American culture. Women with leg or underarm hair aren't just considered unattractive-- by both men and women alike-- they're considered revolting.

Talk about some serious brainwashing...

went to work with his mom everyday until he was 7 months old. (He's 5 now.) It was a great arrangement and worked very well for everyone. Similar to the story, it was for a company that that had offices in a big, old building that at one time was a residence. Also, the baby sort of had the same effect on the office as offices that are dog-friendly, everyone stopped in to coo at him, her co-workers talked a lot about how having him there made them smile. Their office culture noticably benefited from his presence.

The thing is that most babies sleep far more than they are awake until they are 6 or 7 months. It also makes for a very happy mom who wasn't always pining to be with her newborn. I know as a new mother I would find leaving my child 40+ hours a week would be very difficult emotionally, especially if you add hormones, so I doubt my concentration at work would be that great anyways. This is an especially good arrangement for women who breastfeed.

I know the anti-baby, anti-child people are going to chime in here before too long, but this arrangement obviously wouldn't work for colicky babies or babies that cry a lot and are hard to comfort. But it is one way to approach the issue of how hard it is to balance work with being a new parent.

The next best thing is having a daycare on the premises.