"pretty much devoid of ANY partisan viewpoint.  "

Perhaps from a US viewpoint. In a european context it is a clear conservative viewpoint (several of the points he touches on are old conservative foreign policy talking points in many European countries.)

Michael Roberts wrote: I see no contradiction. He's against gay marriage, but thinks a state constitution should be for the enumeration of rights, not the restriction of rights. Where Obama and Biden should to be taken to task is that they want to give civil unions equal legal rights as marriage, which I've always thought was a cop out. If civil unions have equal statuses as marriages, then it's a marriage in all but name, and we're just playing a semantic game so as not to offend religious folk.

Not necessarily -- I have a friend who attends my church who also happens to be gay.  On the topic of gay marriage, he firmly believes that marriage should be viewed as a sacrament, and that marriage within the church should be limited to the union of a man and a woman.  He is all for the idea of civil unions for gays having equal statuses as marriages, and from his perspective it's NOT a "semantic game."

His opinion on the topic of gay marriage was far different than what I had anticipated it would be, but it certainly made for an interesting discussion.

EDITED to change "wife" to "woman"

Knut Robert Knutson wrote: Perhaps from a US viewpoint. In a european context it is a clear conservative viewpoint (several of the points he touches on are old conservative foreign policy talking points in many European countries.)

Conservative, yes -- partisan, no.  Regardless of whether it's a conservative viewpoint or a liberal viewpoint, it's devoid of any affiliation with either U.S. political party.  Remember, "liberal" and "conservative" are vastly different than "Republican" and "Democrat" -- ideologies are not the same as affiliations, regardless of what the parties would have you believe.

;-)

On the topic of gay marriage, he firmly believes that marriage should be viewed as a sacrament, and that marriage within the church should be limited to the union of a man and a wife.  He is all for the idea of civil unions for gays having equal statuses as marriages, and from his perspective it's NOT a "semantic game."

John, I largely agree with this -- with one proviso:  that a man and woman brought together OUTSIDE the church also enter into a "domestic partnership" and not a "marriage."  If "marriage" represents a sacrament, then the absence of the church means the word "marriage" doesn't apply.  As long as we're all being equal, I'm okay.

Amen brother!  Well-said, Tom!  I believe that was the sum total of my friend's feelings on the subject, and I have to agree.

(we need a "thumbs-up" emoticon around here!)

As a gay man, my view of it is if a civil union is identical to a marriage in every way other than name, it is just semantics to coddle the religious right.  I'm not for civil unions.  I'm for full on marriage equality.  Civil unions, to me, equate to segregated water fountains in some bizarre separate but equal standard.

As long as marriages exist outside the church, marriage is not a religious thing.  Are they going to convert every existing marriage that wasn't performed in a church into a civil union?  As soon as they are all converted and as soon as marriages are no longer allowed outside the church, I'll view marriage as something that falls under religion exclusively.  Then, once we do that, what if my religion allows 2 men or 2 women to marry?  What then?

*********

It was bound to happen. I agree with Scott 100%. Anything less than marriage for gays is wrong. I wasn't married in a church and mine is still called a marriage, so should their's. Period.