If gays can wait for an inclusive ENDA, then they can wait for FULL marriage, not Marriage Lite.

Scott, I understand where you're coming from. I only wonder if it's still too soon for federal action on this. I understand the concept of baby steps--get what we can now to reduce the distance we have to travel later. Unfortunately, our own history with other civil rights issues has proven that separate is never equal, so a separate instution that does the same thing won't be enough, and we already know it. Further, even if it were, why create separate institutions--more government programs--that intend to do exactly the same thing? Nevertheless, I would ask this: when people finally realize that civil unions aren't the same and therefore not enough, how much harder will we have made it for ourselves trying to convince the opposition of it?

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected after saying he would allow gays to serve openly in the military. When he realized he couldn't get full equality, he compromised and we got "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We have been living under DADT for 15 years, which--despite increasing numbers of legal challenges--has managed to hold up, and the resulting conditions for gays serving in the military has been, in many ways, worse than before DADT. I believe this is largely due to the opponents of gays serving openly in the military lauding DADT as adequate and achieving the purpose of allowing gays to serve, which--at least in theory--it does.

I agree that the passage of Proposition 8 brought the reality and effects of America's permissive discrimination against same sex-couples--and the LGBT community in general--to a national (and, arguably, international) scale. Had it failed, we would not have had the nationwide attention to our fight. People would have written it off as another example of liberal California politics and continued to live under the delusion that gays will be fine because they have places like California to live in.

Look at our history over the past few decades and you'll see that where once it was perfectly legal to deny housing or employment based on sexual orientation, most major corporations explicitly outlaw such discrimination. We have domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages being legalized in more and more locales.

Marriage has always been left to the states. The only federal involvement prior to the Defense of Marriage Act was that states had to recognize unions formed in other states.

My recommendation for the road ahead? Repeal DOMA and put the federal government back where it was, requiring states to honor marriages (of whatever kind) in other states. Next, encourage the states to continue fighting on their own for marriage. They'll come to it as the states are ready, which all signs indiciate is happening at an increasing rate.

Legislating the rights of the minority using popular majority voting will never turn out the way we want it to, so I think the ultimate answer will come from the courts. Legal cases like the one that inoverturned Proposition 22 in California and the four filed in California to overturn Proposition 8 will continue to be found in our favor--in courts where minorities' voices are heard judiciously. Like Lawrence v. Texas that ruled every state's sodomy laws unconstitutional, one of these might just do the same.

I generally agree with you that civil unions should be given greater priority as a national project, at the very least because they provide material benefits that many people really need (and because of some subversive potential, but I won't get into that now). Also, just to follow up on Lucrece's comment, the existence of a civil union system has had no discernible effect on the outcome of marriage equality decisions. The Connecticut and California Supreme Courts both explicitly addressed whether denying the name "marriage" alone to same-sex couples was a equal protection violation, and both answered in the affirmative. Having a civil union system in place may actually make it easier to get to marriage from a legal perspective, because any argument that the state needs to allocate rights to encourage a particular family form are strongly undermined where all the benefits of straight marriage are already given to same-sex couples. All that remains is a desire to denominate same-sex couples as second-class citizens and/or religious animus, both of which are unconstitutional.

I dont believe it some one who finaly gets it.Mention marraige and let the people vote we lose every time.Mention Civil Unions it puts them to sleep oh that yeah have all the rights of the word we wont mention but mention it and they all freak out.Well written Scott and now lets get Civil Unions with teeth and move on to the important matters Hate crimes bill all inclusive ENDA etc.Otherwise if we just bogg down on marraige then we all will continue to lose and were losing allies as we continue to whine about how we lost and who voted against us etc etc etc.For the record im Trans and yes this is a Trans issue as long as you keep harping on it and only it Trans folks will continue to get there rights pushed to the dump of things we want as a group.

I would also like to add that I believe fighting for full marriage equality makes achieving other ends (like CUs and DPS) easier. I also think it makes it easier to get other laws passed to assist those not in marriage-like relationships.

Personally, I accept the pragmatism of incrementalism is true in many cases. I certainly want your family to get something that helps to protect you as soon as possible. But barring completely overhauling the system and changing things for everyone, full marriage equality seems like the thing to ask for in this line of argument.

It is foolish to begin negotiations by asking for something you clearly cannot get. But it is even more foolish to start negotiations at less than what you want.

"Americans are willing to protect jobs of LGBT people then accept gay marriage."

I agree with Monica's thoughts above, but isn't this compartmentalization of legal rights part of the insanity?

I cannot be the ONLY person who lost a job due to a lack of marriage protection; a classic Domino Effect. Inequality in divorce often leads to one party "getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop", which can translate into welfare and a host of psychological problems (like PTSD) that directly affect one's ability to work and function.

I still doubt ANYONE will care about our lives if they do not care about our FAMILY. Would YOU care about my job if you ignore the family, children, and housing that job supports? Would YOU care about my desire to serve openly in the military if you want me to hide my spouse from you and also LIE about it? Would YOU care about my desire to adopt other's children if my OWN husband & children are not even COUNTED as a family in your 2010 census?!

Here what will be interesting about our civil rights movement; we will ALL react very uniquely, following our hearts, minds, and souls. Given my own experience I can ONLY focus on my own Equality Tax Protest here at home, and suggest others do the same (BTW - I seriously do NOT care if anyone agrees with tax protest; I cannot accept this "legal reality" while simultaneously being tax compliant. I Won't.

Scott, I agree with you in part.

I want the word MARRIAGE used because it eliminates "US and THEM.
I am sure you understand SEPARATE is not EQUAL!!!!