I have to say that Chris Crain and I have rarely, if any, agreed with one another, all the way back when he was just the editor of Southern Voice. But, in this case, I do agree with him.

It's much better to challenge DOMA and hold President elect Obama to his word that he will repeal it. DOMA is a violation of the Establishement Clause (separation of church and state)and it is unconstitutional A Federal Civil Union could be chipped away or altered. Not so with a full civil marriage. Religions are given the priviledge of conducting marriage, but it is priviledge and could be taken away. Not all religions oppose same-sex marriage. Why do you suggest Federal Civil Unions just because a segment of the population doesn't want same sex couples to marry ? Why didn't they do that in Loving v Virginia. Because it is unconstitutional. Our system is not just mob rule. We have individual liberties protected by the judiciary. Majorities are frequently wrong. You have to look at what the majority thinks and doubt its wisdom, because the majority of Americans have often been wrong througout history. To make any constitutional concession to religious people is wrong.

I agree as well, but I'd take it one step further and make everyone happy: Call it "civil marriage". That way there's no question ever as to the level of rights inherent in it and no one can confuse it with religious marriage. Gays get to call themselves married and the bigots get to keep their religious status of their own marriages (at least in their own minds) and continue feeling morally superior to everyone else.

Sounds like a winner all the way around, no?

I have no problem with the proposal per se (in fact, I find it encouraging to see someone like Crain willing to accept a form of 'incremental progress.)

On the other hand, if, on the priority scale, this thing hops over the issue of trans-inclusivity, then I smell trouble.

WRT "separate but equal" approach, the California Supreme Court spoke to this; from page 11 of the In re Marriage Cases decision:

[...] Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite- sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

Sorry if this comes off as melodramatic, but African-Americans weren't fighting for separate-but-slightly-more-equal laws. Suffragists weren't fighting for the right to vote, but only one that counted for slightly less than a man's. Ghandi didn't starve himself for only partial independence from Britain.

We've been scaling back our goals for decades and what it earned us what the Human Rights Campaign, their boundless thirst for our cash, and the weak-kneed "action" the aforementioned cash paid for. I'm sorry to take umbrage with your idea, but I'm honestly sick of this sort of thing. If civil unions are truly equal, then why don't we see straight couples getting them?

If marching in DC last weekend left me with anything, it was the realization that it's finally on. No settling - full equality, and we'll keep fighting until we get there.

Why aren't all of the ba-zillion NON-religious heterosexual couples barred from getting married? Aren't theirs "civil marriages"

THEY use the word. I don't understand.

Karen:

You make a good point bringing up the reasoning with the California Supreme Court decision. They basically said what the U.S. Supreme established in Brown v. Board of Education...separate is not equal.

But I like Crain's idea. HJB, I agree with you, and I'm mad as hell too. My Mom didn't raise me to sit in the back of the bus. But sometimes we have to take a reality check. Let's get "civil unions." The majority says they're fine with it, and the American Taliban even says they're for equal treatment (just don't touch their marriages). OK, call their bluff. They've said all along civil unions are fine, so let's get civil unions.

In the meantime, hopefully there will have been a couple more balanced and progressive SCOTUS appointments. Then we can come along and say, "Civil Unions...separate is not equal." And the court will go along, and we have what we want.

The AmTaliban will whine and cry and kick and scream, but by then the country will be too far left for them to ever pass a federal constitutional amendment. I like this idea.

Opponents will see clearly that the bill would open grounds for a SCOTUS challenge to DOMA. This bill will see just as much opposition as the repeal of DOMA would once Republicans smarten up to the implication of passing such a bill.