So you must believe that states would be within their rights to put any limit they choose on marriage? bronco - I honestly had no idea the two polled that differently, thanks for the info. I still don't think it would turn out that way in a vote on full civil unions. If they gave same sex marriage a basket of a few rights, maybe, but if civil unions were to be identical to marriage you would have all the same groups out there opposing it for all the same reasons. Even the poll states "a slight majority supports allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements that give them many of the same rights as married couples". That wording, with the word many, was used in the poll. Change that question to "all" and I think the numbers are very different.
You talk in circles. According to the Court, marriage is a fundamental right. They have not held that the fundamental right extends only to heterosexual couples. And actually, States can impose limitations on Constitutionally protected rights, so you're wrong anyway.
According to the Court, or according to the Constitution that the judges who sit on those courts have sworn do defend? And what constitutionally protected rights can the states limit?
Johnny- This is a great opportunity for the gay cause. If the article you posted is genuine, it is despicable. But instead of going off on the religious right (a group that will never be sympathetic) use examples like this to further the agenda with moderates. Articles like this actually garner suppport for the cause by people like me. Use it to your advantage. The religious right does not have enough votes to harm this cause by itself. Stop fighting with them and embrace the voters that can be influenced.
bronc, Not trying to fight, either: but here are the two ballot issues in CO for referendum i: Colorado Referendum I for amendment 43: Colorado Amendment 43 Both were on the '06 ballot; I was off by 3 percentage points as to the swing on the votes - 53% voted against referendum I, 56% voted for Amendment 43. I am aware of the polling data of marriage v. civil unions. But "civil union" means different things to different people. Some civil unions aren't worth the paper they are printed on (in terms of legal protections) and therefor, some people don't "see any harm" in letting us queers have them - just as long as we'll shut up about it. A civil union that confers all 1400+ responsibilities, rights, and protections as marriage and is portable? Won't pass at the ballot box for a while. Eventually, it will. Here's an interesting graph: Future Trends for Gay Marriage
