"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. "

That's way too simplistic. There is an element of religion and phobia, but there is a lot more there.

I'm an atheist and was raised by a well educated, extremely liberal, world traveled, single mother. I grew up in the Castro with many close gay and lesbian friends in our extended family. I respect and appreciate the LGBT community. That’s why I’m for civil unions to address the many needs of the LGBT community and their children. Having said that, I don’t think it’s accurate to say a same sex couples are the same as an opposite sex couple. In fact I think it’s unsubstantiated, counter intuitive, and illogical seeming even for someone raised in the Castro and who has been around non-traditional families all my life.

There are biological realities. Men can’t breast feed and no law will change that. Similarly two women are not a male role model, nor two men a female role model. There can be aunts and uncles and outside biological fathers, but it’s not the same.

We all know some important differences exist in social behavior between men and women. We also know socialization is important at an early age to learn good skills for interaction and to form role models both for one self and for future mates. It's a good idea for children to have both a male and female parent for that reason, to socialize them in a way only possible with immediate family.

This isn’t about rights and things like medical insurance. If that was the case people would have been for civil unions.

"The whole purpose of arguing over the kids is to distract from the real issue of equal economic rights."

If that were the case, if it was just about economics, then the LGBT community would have gone for civil unions.

No, this is very much about children and the assertion that LGBT parents are just as "ideal" as opposite sex parents, and that's always been a major element of the existing movement for gay marriage. There are plenty of LGBT people who would be happy with civil unions btw, it's a pretty big split in the LGBT community. Just they're not being represented now.

For the record, I'm not one of those lesbian "players" you refer to (as if all lesbians are).

What I said was that being a lesbian doesn’t make promiscuity any less likely than being gay or straight. The idea of lesbians as “nesters” while gay men are partiers is a myth. It comes down to what it always comes down to: the individual.

This in no way informs my feelings about gay marriage, which I’m totally in favor of.

I’m gay, by the way.

Sorry, Sara. You're a female. You can't have a "wife." It's a contradiction in terms.

Am I being a total lawyer snob in asking that Salon's cover story on the NY Appeals Court gay marriage ruling contain a tiny whiff of actual legal analysis? Even a brief comment about the rational basis standard of review would help place this story in context and explain why courts sometimes uphold laws the individual judges consider ignorant, mean spirited, and ineffective.

I certainly understand the emotional sting the court's ruling has for gays and lesbians. But if you're going to parse the court's opinion, it might be helpful to do so with at least an inkling of how the court got where it did with its ruling.

You know you're reading propaganda when the opposite side is presented only in starkly bad terms (all those bad heteros!) and your side is presented only in glowingly good terms (oh, what a wonderful "family" we have!).

The fact is, no marriage or family is perfect, but the vast majority of heterosexual families are stable, with loving parents doing the best they can and turning out pretty good kids. (And the 50% divorce rate is a myth that arose out of a misreading of statistics.)

A large majority of homosexual relationships (especially among men) are promiscuous, even when they're in "long-term stable relationships." Even Andrew Sullivan admits that the nation needs to come to terms with homosexuals' need to have more than one sexual partner.

(And tobi, before you come back with your "Andrew Sullivan is a racist" rant, remember I proved you a liar when you quoted from a nonexistent "book" that Sullivan never wrote.)

Sexual preference and race are not equivalent. The biological basis of preference is not yet a fact. The biolgical basis of skin color, hair structure, eye shape, nose sructure, ...et al are obvious and biological. If your parents are negroe, cacausion, whatever, you are. If your parents are 100% homosexual, you are not. Right, you do not exist.

The court decided the legislature can rationally decide the societal structures the government will favor. It does not have to be fair. It must be rational. The idea that marriage is only for men and women is rational, even if many think it unfair. The idea of marriage between same sex partners is relatively new in the history of human beings. As a matter of fact it is a relatively new concept for homosexuals. Homosexuality is a distortion of the ideal sexual relationship. Sexes exist, biologically speaking, as a path to reproduction. Homosexual activity does not produce new human beings. For society, the legislature, to favor relationships that produce offspring is rational.

I agree with the legislature. I believe the homosexual life is not the ideal. I accept it as a choice. I do not hate homosexuals. I do not fear homosexuality.

Just wanted to clarify something. A lot of people say that gays should settle for civil unions as oppossed to trying for marriage.

DOMA, which was signed under Clinton, dictated that only a "marriage" would be able to receive federal benefits. There are over 1300 federal benefits available to married couples. These include the transfer of social security benefits, joint tax filing, legal protection in case of divorce, automatic power of attorney, medical power, transfer of pensions, ....lots of benefits that are not available on a state wide basis.

If DOMA did not exist then the gay population would be just fine with civil unions, as it would make their relationships equal legally. However, a civil union means nothing as long as the Defense of Marriage Act is on the books. t