But what about all the people without partners, left behind by laws that privilege marriage? Will you fight for that part of our community, so that they too have economic peace of mind and emotional security?

How about you fight for that yourself, Nancy?

You have a problem with the institution? Take it upon yourself to cause change. However, don't expect people uninterested in such fight to be pushed into solving YOUR cause.

I completely agree. It isn't about assimilation it is about affirmation. Many cultures have recognized same sex unions in some way, and those same sex relationships have been around along time. Why shouldn't we have those now?

Same sex partnerships anyone? I think that when you begin with a different title you automatically refresh the role expectations of "marriage." I and my partner had trusts and an "S" incorporation.

Well, it is a pretty stunning lack of creativity, assimilation argument aside. Family law needs to be completely revised. (Full disclosure: I actually read Nancy's book, and she makes an incredibly strong point about how family law needs to be turned on its head instead of just expanding marriage.)

And where's he getting that 95% number? I'd estimate more around 2-3% are in the white picket fence contingent, considering how few gay and lesbian people are in long-term cohabiting relationships, how few hets in relationships like that actually get married, and the vast economic inequality in the US that prevents the majority of Americans from owning nice homes....

Interesting point, Lucrece. You know, if everyone thought like that, same-sex marriage would never happen, considering that somewhere along the line heterosexuals are going to have to vote for same-sex marriage, and we can't expect people uninterested in such fight to be pushed into solving OUR cause.

You know, if everyone thought like that, same-sex marriage would never happen, considering that somewhere along the line heterosexuals are going to have to vote for same-sex marriage, and we can't expect people uninterested in such fight to be pushed into solving OUR cause.

Sing it, sister.

If people were uninterested in the first place, you wouldn't see all these drives to define marriage under a heterosexual-only context. It goes both ways.

Now, context misinterpretation on your part aside, I'd like to see the full argument on why those fighting for same-sex marriage should wait a few more centuries until our society is ready to dismantle marriage laws and extend benefits to everyone in order to get things done.