You've made your point eloquently. As I alluded to before, I agree that people should be allowed to unite in civil union and should be allowed all survivorship, health insurance benefits that normal marriages enjoy. I've never refuted that. That's a legal issue. Even if you leave the homosexuality out of it and two people want to enter into that sort of legal arrangement, it should be allowed. I do have an issue with the symantics of calling it “marriage” since that is a term literally meaning “tribut to mother” from judao-christian roots.

Divorce is, indeed, a negative. And it should reflect on the leaders we choose. Amen to that.
The main issue I have is of the complete moral fiber of the nation. It is breaking apart. One of the main reasons for it is the abondonment of God at the center of it all as the founding fathers prescribed. That's not saying an adoption of a particular religion, just keeping the Creator, God, Jehovah, Allah (etc) at the center of government. That's the unitarian concept the was the basis of the Constitution, according to its writers and signatories.

The other is the total lack of accountability where no one takes responsibility for their own actions or failures. This happens with divorce, as most are salvagable. People, instead, just quit and do not wish to work it out. I'm not talking about infidelity or abuse cases, just the “irreconcilable differences” cases which are the majority.

I too, have a big libertarian streak in my veins. Libertarianism is one place conservatives and liberals can actually meet with little tension.

Call me old fashioned. When I was training to be a Naval officer in the late 60's we were told a divorce would effectively end our careers. A Naval officer, we were told, took three solemn oaths in his lifetime; to his country, to his God and to his wife. To fail to uphold any of the three would call into question his ability to uphold the other two. Divorce was alright for civilians, but we had to answer to a higher calling.

If there was less acceptance of divorce in society, then I believe there would be less divorce. Considering divorce as a negative when selecting the men and women who would be our leaders would help. I believe there is a moral component to leadership. It is better if more of this is by example and not just talk.

The main argument against same sex marriage is that it causes harm to traditional marriage. Harm that, for some reason, cannot quite be articulated. I just wanted to point out the widespread acceptance of divorce, which completely destroys traditional marriage, undercuts the harm to traditional marriage argument against same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue pure and simple. As long as society, though the agency of government, advances marriage by granting it privilege then it must make marriage available on an equal basis to law abiding citizens.

This is a civil libertarian position, not a liberal one.

And to Rambie:
What makes you think I have a fear of homosexuals (homo-phobia)?
I'm not afraid of anyone.

Like most liberals I meet, you've gotta lighten up and stop being offended by everything.
I am not politically correct – never will be. If I have an issue between the races, I discuss race with a person of another race. Likewise for just about everything else.

Once you read more of my posts, you'll realize that I have nothing but love in my heart for my fellow Americans.

Why just Republicans, make it *any* politician and I'll be on board.

AR: same with your idea.

JD: Your homophobia is showing.

I never know whether reason B is something to celebrate or worry about…

If all of you liberals would become gay and have a civil union, then liberals would be extinct in a generation!

How can we get it implemented? I'm on board.