Take your share of that $85 billion to Canada and get legally married! Then, your kids can say their parents are married, and it will be the state that has its facts wrong.

Greg

<<This is a tired old saw, one I've yet to see statistically proven, and contradicted by the people I meet. Lesbians are capable of being real players. The lesbians I know are just as capable of promiscuity (or being sexually liberated, if you prefer) as some of the gay men I know. Conversely, I know gay men who will settle for nothing less than complete monogamy.>>

And all of this about monogamy and polyamorous relations has WHAT to do with whether I as a lesbian can visit my beloved partner (or she me) in a hospital, inherit from her, have her legally recognized as my family?

Let's face it: men and women, whether straight or gay, can be "players", can be promiscuous. Men and women, whether straight or gay, can also be monogamous and committed to one person. This is not only a non-starter but it also uses the religious right's f*cked-up, backward logic that because some members of a group *may* do something "wrong", let's ensure no one from that group can do anything. If you follow that logic, then why the hell should straights be allowed to marry? Some of them will cheat, be "players"--male and female. Some will go on reality shows and marry. Some will marry for publicity stunts. You get the drift.

For the record, I'm not one of those lesbian "players" you refer to (as if all lesbians are). My partner and I 1) are totally monogamous and 2) have absolutely no plans to have children (whether of our own blood or through adoption). But why shouldn't we have the same rights under the law that my straight brother and his wife, also completely monogamous and childless, have?

I recognize and appreciate the situation Sara and Martha are in as parents. That more is at stake for gay and lesbian parents is true. However, the ultimate bottom line is that they first and foremost (and my partner and I) are being denied fundamental civil rights. It has to start with our rights as individuals being recognized.

Marriage, a union between two individuals that are supposedly in love. When I married 7 years ago the last thing on my mind was whether or not my husband would be the best man to raise children. Undoubtedly, if I had used that criteria I probably would not have married him. He had never shown any indication that he would be the best father in the world. He wasn't even that fond of children unless they could carry on a conversation. These things didn't matter because I wasn't marrying him to be a father, I was marrying him to be a husband. He was sensitive and attentive to my needs and wants, and I knew I could happily spend the rest of my life with him. This was the most important thing to me. I have known married couples that seemed to abhor one another. I don't know if they hated each other before they had kids or not, but I do know their kids suffered. I remember one of my friends young daughter being so frustrated with their lack of love that she told me she wished they would just get a divorce. She said she hated her father, and that her mother was no better. A loveless marriage. I talked to my friend and she insisted the only reason she stayed with him was for the children. I thought this was odd since the children seemed to be the ones most hurt by their lack of love. I know you're thinking, what does all of this have to do with gay marriage? Well, the point I want to make is that the most important ingredient in a marriage is love. Whether the couple is black, white, mixed, gay, or straight really doesn't matter. Children who live in a loving household tend to be more stable. The problem is there is no way to prove love. It is an individual decision. The courts have no right to keep two people who are in love from marriage. To say that a loving, gay family is not the best situation for children to grow up in is malarky! It's an excuse. I can't for the life of me understand why they want to "protect" the sortid, crazy, unpredictible institution of heterosexual marriage anyway. In my opinion, it boils down to the fact that Christian zealots want marriage all for themselves. They want to dictate their beliefs into everyones life. You see this on many issues other than marriage. This is just one more way for them to try to control what people do and think. At one time apparently God did not like black people, and He did not want them to marry white people, or vote, or even use the same water fountains, but He changed His mind, and now he likes black people, at least He tolerates them. Gay people today have the same problem. Maybe if all the gay people join together and pray, pray, pray God will eventually like you too, or at least tolerate you!! Good Luck

The whole purpose of arguing over the kids is to distract from the real issue of equal economic rights. Marriage is not about kids, it's about an economic union between two people (as far as the courts are, or should be, concerned). Sure it's love and all when you walk down the aisle, but when the divorce lawyers are called in, it's about the money. Marriage as a contract is about equal access to the marital estate both during (such as health benefits for the spouse) or after (such as an equitable division of assets).

By denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians, the courts are denying equal protection under law to access the economic benefits of the marital estate. Should the author ever decide she wanted out of the relationship, her partner could leave her with nothing! (I'm assuming the author's partner makes more money because she would have been in position to provide health care benefits to the daughter, had she been in a straight marriage). With no marriage, the author has no economic rights to spousal support, no benefits, no nothing.

Arguing over the kids is not what this is, or should be, about. Even publishing this article in response to the NY courts purpetuates the belief that it's about the kids. It's not.