[Timber Loftis]

But - as Timber pointed out several months ago in a similar thread - MOST of the legal benefits CAN be attained by gay couples. It requires a lot of paperwork and the cost is fairly high ($5,000 - $10,000 IIRC), but it can be done.

Actually, the cost I think I quoted is upwards of $20K, and any of these costs is unfair to thrust on a couple just because of their gender. Let me be clear: while I think that calling it "marriage" is only a minor "to-may-to, to-mah-to" issue, I do believe that insuring the rights of coupling inure to a gay couple is important. IMO, every state *should* have a "civil union" for these couples, to allow them the same substantive benefits.

Additionally, I think the law as first proposed by Mass works best -- call it a "civil union" and pass a law stating that all mentioning of "marriage" in the law must also apply to "civil unions" -- making them substantively equal, while preserving the nomenclature difference.

And the plain fact is that "Gay Marriages" or "Civil Unions" won't do diddley-squat to change the items on that list that can't be attained through the proper legal paperwork. Since gay marriages or civil unions are NOT being universally recognized in all 50 states, there isn't much that can be done to FORCE an employer to acknowledge the union and offer health insurance to a same-sex partner/spouse. The same applies to any other item on that list. If a lawyer cannot draw up paperwork to obtain those benefits, having your relationship officially sanctioned by one or two states isn't going to help either.

Actually, this is wrong, as well. For instance, the employer in VT, no matter their state of origin, must follow the VT law and make sure the rights in question (such as shared medical insurance) also go to the "civil union" couples. The state does control that. The same is now true in Mass.

As for the states refusing to recognize the marriages/unions, that is still an issue. However, that too is changing -- NY will recognize the MA marriages for instance.

I realize there are heartbreaking examples of gay couples being denied basic rights most of us take for granted...the lesbian partner who was not allowed to be in the room with her dying partner, the gay couple that manage to adopt a child (or procreate through a surrogate), only to lose custody of the child when one of the partners die.

Yes, As I mentioned before, these are issues that even some staunch conservatives can see as being very wrong from a "humanity/compassion" standpoint.

The problem is that having the State gov't declare the union "legal" isn't going to change the bias of the nurse that refused to let the partner into the room of her dying lover. And while the State may considered the union between the two "legal", the custody of the child could still be contested since a "legal union" still may not be considered equivalent to "next of kin".

Actually, in the states protecting such unions, this is also wrong as well. In VT, a nurse who is biased against gays, will nevertheless grant the access to the "death bed" that a next-of-kin gets (as required by law), because that nurse knows that the way the law is now, he/she can be subject to JAIL TIME for refusing those rights. Additionally, refusing those rights could get the hospital *sued,* which result in the nurse at least losing their job -- even more incentive to do the right thing under the law.

Just some thoughts and clarifications. Not meaning to slam you about, Cerek. I think you listened to the concerns rather thoughtfully, I just think you misunderstand and misunderestimate (to use a Bushism) the ability of the law to change things.