Many on both sides seem (IMHO) to frame the issues in a way that encourages irrational discussion and wrong answers. Let me count the ways.

1) On civil unions: The issue isn't whether gays can get married in the religious sense; churches perform marriages every day, and many gay couples call themselves married. What gay couples can't have (so far) is the purely CIVIL advantages of marriage. Nor is any church forced by law, today (or in the future), to marry anyone. Government, by definition, cannot confer on gay couples anything but the CIVIL trappings of marriage. Was the marriage of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Pressly anything but a CIVIL marriage? Were they married in a church? Does it make any "earthly" difference? To my mind, "civil unions" are the ONLY unions at stake in a court of law or legislature - past, future, or present. Some will call it marriage and others will not, but so what?

2) CHILDREN: Some say marriage isn't just for children. But Katie IS a child, and she DOES lack protections and benefits she would have if her mothers were married. The author didn't say Katie has no medical insurance; perhaps she does. But she could have double coverage, and why shouldn't she, if other children do? KATIE SHOULD SUE, NOT HER PARENTS!

3) Straight marriage is more natural or ideal, or at minimum not "equivalent": And your point is? Katie has the parents she has, period. So do all children.

4) Stable relationships: Government has no right or ability to determine such. No straight couple would accept government interference in their relationship; why should other couples? Are interracial marriages more or less stable? Jew-Gentile? Northerner-Southerner? It's none of the government's business.

5) FIGHT IT IN THE LEGISLATURES. Gay couples have no right to marriage until a legislature says so? But American democracy isn't just majority rule. If it were, blacks might still be slaves or, if not, could be made slaves AGAIN if legislatures change their minds. The Bill of Rights was designed to confer rights that aren't susceptible to the vagaries of majority rule and day-to-day politics.

6) Original Intent: Hogwash. Where the 14th Amendment says "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", that is original intent. But what does "equal" mean? What does "protection" include? Who is a "person"? Courts - and society - have changed the answers to such questions, and rightly so. A narrow interpretation of "original intent" would allow slavery and would fail to give women the vote. The original words have evolved to expand our liberties. As they should!

It all seems so simple to me! I guess that just makes me simple-minded.

... "To me, this whole "is a gay/lesbian couple equal to a straight couple?" question is just a red herring, because it's arguing from an ideal position (in the straight person's mind) and reality has little to do with ideal scenarios." ...

Arguing the relative merits of family arrangements in the context of public policy on child rearing and marriage is a "red herring" in your view? That makes no sense.

Your notion that the "ideal" never exists, as defined as two parents of the opposite sex who are both loving and competent... do you see how absurd your assertion just was? Yes that exists quite often enough to be considered an obtainable ideal. My mother despite being well educated and from an upper middle class family, bought into another poorly considered radical movement, the feminist movement against fathers in the 60’s, and has regretted it since. Neither of us would wish that on anyone or recommend it because it was often unnecessarily difficult and painful. Neither would any of the many children of single parents that I know.

I'm not saying LGBT parents are awful or anything like that. In fact I'm quite positive many make excellent parents and there will be a slew of highly successful children in future to prove exactly that point and move the issue forward.

But for some perspective, the black community often praises heroic mothers who manage to raise children without fathers against adversity. But you don’t see any of them recommending it to the next generation do you?

And yet we’re supposed to believe in the case of LGBT families that two parents of the same sex, meaning the lack of a father or mother in exchange for two of the same, that’s nothing to be concerned about and that we can even be confident enough now to recommend it as fully equal to the established ideal? Sorry, but as much as I used to support gay marriage and as much as I want to say it’s as simple as everyone’s the same, I don’t see realistically how that assertion can be anything but highly speculative and potentially reckless and driven by ideology more than reason.

Regardless, this issue is a big waste of time because it's not going anywhere. The only staunch proponents of it are the half of the LGBT community well-heeled enough to do it for self gratification, win or lose. In fact, they don’t even listen to the pro-civil union contingent of the LGBT community which is more in need of realistic reform now as they’re the one’s truly suffering from lack of medical benefits and who can’t afford legal counsel to accomplish the economic benefits. The cries of suffering on the behalf of the litigation side of the LGBT community ring hollow and are much more about a cultural war than practical issues.

Thank God that my state has had the courage and sense to let same-sex couples have families of their own and raise their kids in peace. We're living with it every day here in MA, and I'll tell you what an impact it's having on everyday life for most of us -- None. Aside from the occassional joy of getting to see a friend get married, to participate in that celebration of a new family, there is just no impact at all on the typical family.

Hurray for Sara for raising a family in the face of all this irrational prejudice! And kudos for bringing out the arguments for the rights of children of same-sex couples, even though it seems like shooting fish in a barrel, since the arguments against it are so weak.

I wish the same-sex marriage opponents would just get a life and leave these good people alone. What did Sara's family ever do to you?

If the opponents of same-sex marriage want to be taken seriously, want to be seen as anything more than hysterical bigots, they should be able to answer in the particular. What's wrong with Sara's family? Why should we be cruel to Sara's children? Why do we need to "protect them" from having loving parents?