Vetoing Domestic Partnerships

God, how long do we have to wait. The Supreme Court is now 5-4 conservative now(most of the time), Bush would veto, and Congress, I have no clue what they would do but they certainly don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto.

I thank you for your support, DKNY, and I do agree with you. But, I hear many people bristling at the words "gay marriage," as if one person must be the "male" and the other must be the "female," and they must live like Ward and June Cleaver. Being the pragmatist that I am, I don't particularly care what the institution is called as long as I have the same rights under it. But you do make a valid and cogent point that all of the arguments against gay marriage are, in and of themselves, irrational.

And, spock, it's quite obvious you're not in the legal profession, and you interpretations of law are, at best, unique. The federal government can indeed define what a marriage is, as well as the individual states can. Moreover, the federal government's definition will take precedence over an individual state's definition, if the federal law so stipulates. Your attempts to explain the President's actions by using the old warhorse of states' rights is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.

The next rational argument I hear against allowing people of the same gender to marry one another will be the first one. There is no logical reason to preclude it. For that reason, I disagree with you, Chuck. Of course you and your partner should be able to avail yourselves of the same benefits as intergender couples, but that arrangement should be called "marriage," and not something different.

This is a State Issue, since DC falls under Federal and is NOT a state. Bush believes in State rights, ok DC is a very limited authority and by allowing the law in a Federal controlled area makes it Federalized.

Bush is an idiot, always has been, always will be.

This clown just keeps giving me more reasons why I should vote for anyone except for a Republican.

Hate, is a value of the Bush Fascist Republican Mafia Party, all Americans must unit and rise up to the Enemy within.

This is not an issue of morality, but of civil rights. As a gay man myself, I don't care if you call it "marriage," "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," or "the Queen of Sheba": I just want the same rights that heterosexual couples have in determining the course of their lives. My partner cannot share in my health plan; he will receive no benefit from my employee pension; he cannot determine what medical care I should receive if I become incapable; he has no rights to settle my personal affairs unless I grant those rights (which I have). What is wrong with this picture is that people such as Bob Knight are trying to use their morality to deny others' rights. It didn't work in the 20th century with the Civil Rights movement, but it seems to be working in the 21st with Tartuffian moralists who, in their zeal to save souls, are condemning them instead.

Consenting adults should be permitted to marry. There is no rational basis for allowing a man to marry a woman but not allow a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry a man. Fortunately, those of us who believe this to be the case will be on the right side of history, just like those who opposed anti-miscegination laws years ago.