I love it when SF is front page CNN. And for what else? Gay marriage. I never understood the problem with civil unions. It keeps up the illusion of marriage as some sort of sacred, long standing tradition between a man and a woman and allows gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples. Compromise-everyone should be happy, except for the crazies on the right and the screamers on the left, which I prefer to leave unhappy.

If I were gay, I wouldn't need affirmation from the state to tell me my relationship is legitimate - but the legal rights, that's what I would be after. So in that sense, a civil union and a gay marriage would be the selfsame thing. But that's just me. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was a) married or b) wanted to be married or c) actually gay.

I guess the difference between being "married" vs having a civil union, is the overt acceptance in the eyes of society - the public acknowledgement that it is normal for some people to be gay.

I can see how this would matter to people, and if I had to pick a side - the side that needs public acknowledgement vs. the side that wants to dictate what free adults can do with their own lives, I think it's pretty obvious with whom I'd stand....

....but here's another idea, what about banning marriage all together??? The tradition itself is rooted in primitive ideas of gender and relationships. Why are single people punished for being single, with our laws and social customs imposing undue pressure and financial incentives towards getting married? Why not argue that the very institution of marriage causes undue harm to families broken by infidelity- perhaps a natural occurrence, the attraction to multitudes of people.

Ask a single 25-35 year old what they spend time stressing about and I guarantee marriage comes up. Is this a necessary or useful stress?