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.

I think you missed the creepy subtext of the Ford piece in Slate. Here's why I think so: http://hamiltonbcs.blogspot.com/2006/07/you-mean-its-not-homophobia-its-sexism.html

Why would it be "stopping short of full equality" not to have gay marriage, if gays had all of those other 1000+ benefits? What more do gays want than equality in the eyes of the law? Do they want to be married in the eyes of God?

If so, sorry. Ain't gonna happen. And even if it were, the state would have no business saying so.

in MA, the only state that recognizes gay marriage, record numbers of voters signed petitions to get a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

Actually, many of them may have been misled. The governor's office and various gay rights groups recieved thousands of phone calls from signers who said they thought they were signing a petition to allow supermarkets to sell beer and wine.

It is highly interesting that as gay marriage laws lose by huge margins in every state ... from ultra conservative Nebraska to ultra liberal Oregon ..... gay marriage proponents insist that "the end is near" and that anti-gay marriage sentiment is falling away.

I can't see anything measurable that supports that. Gay marriage advocates openly admit that if Massachusetts -- TODAY after a couple years of legal gay marriage -- brougt this to a vote, the laws would be rescinded....because they exist solely because of activist judges, rather than the will of the people.

The reality is that human society is gendered, and that most of us like it that way. We don't want to live in a genderless, neutral society.

Marriage is a specific relationship that has always been between males and females -- even in polygamous or polygynous societies. Every society and culture in human history has had male-female marriage -- not one has had gay marriage of any kind, or even recognized gay relationships with a formal name. That includes communist "utopias" of the 20th century.

The reality of what gay marriage would eventually lead to -- the thing that frightens straight society (and it's NOT homophobia) is we would end up with NO marriage at all....just loosely constructed, ad hoc "friend" relationships, a kind of formalized serial monogamy where people come together briefly to raise children (until they get bored with that) and then move on. Those much desired "1000 and One" rights that gay couples so passionately strive for? We will ALL lose them....why grant ANY rights to multiple partners in casual, formless relationships?

Comparing gay marriage with the ugly laws on racially mixed marriages is bogus. For one thing, bi-racial marriage was only banned in a few places (the southern US, South Africa) for a relatively brief historical period. On the other hand, male-female marriage has existed as long as human beings have walked the earth. The reason that bi-racial marriages laws FELL is that ultimately society could not deny the right of marriage between ANY man and ANY woman.

Hopefully salon readers will consider along with this that gay marriage as a political issue LOSE the last election for the Democratic Party. And it will lose the White House again in 2008 if liberals and activists insist on this self-destructive course of action. Is this what you really want?