I think we should stop playing whack-a-mole with Ed. He has changed arguments, brought up irrelevancies and in general acted troll-like.

JMHO, but I'm bowing out, to go work on getting the ERA passed. That'll shut him up good.

Sorry, but the SS benefits should read:

SS Survivor or Disabilty benefits for spouse or children

Jake:
I’m unmoved by your repeated use of the phrase “separate but equal” because I don’t believe the comparison to Brown is apt, and in fact, many people would find it insulting.

you are either being willfully ignorant or fail to read for comprehension. Civil unions do not automatically provide for:
Equal IRS treatment for inheritances.
Equal standing for child rearing vis a vis schools.
Automatic consideration by hospitals as the next of kin in the even of sickness and death.
Automatic abilty to direct medical care for minor child
Name changes.
SS Survivor benefits for children
SS Disability benefits for children
JTWROS for bank accounts (as an automatic thing)
Presumption of nontestifyability of husband or wife (wrong words, I'm not a lawyer)
Ability to take children out of the country without a MAJOR hassle, sometimes not doable at all
Ability to assign Life insurance benefits to spouse without major hassle

these and hundreds of other little common issues are AUTOMATIC when you get "married" but not when you have been through a "civil union" .
The biggest one? Non-portability: just because i am in a civil union in one state does not allow me to have ANY rights in another. Further, ALL the things we've mentioned are subject to beaurocratic revision at any time.

THAT"S the difference.

Ed, please give me a cite to prove what you're saying. Otherwise, looking back at non-european histories (South American, Eastern) will demonstrate that it is NOT procreation that marriage provides for, but MONEY, ie property rights and care for the elderly.

And you have completely missed my argument, as well as several others': since marriage is NOT primarily religious in nature, it MUST be allowed to all. If it WERE primarily religious, that would be a different story. The OBJECTIONS to SSM are almost entirely religious in nature, even if they are couched, as yours are, in more clouded terms.

Elle, I was saying that there is not absolute consensus among the GBLT community (not even among the researchers) about the use/non-use of gender vs sex. My daughter, who is engaged, talks about SSM as "gender-neutral marriage". Her choice, the English language is ambiguous.

Ed,

I am completely confused by your argument. Is marriage the same in every culture? Clearly not. Is it religious in some cultures? Clearly. Are the ideals of marriage the same in every religious OR non-religious culture? Again, clearly not.

So what does procreation have to do with it? The one commonality across all cultures that I have seen is FAMILY, not procreation. In this regard, all marriages that provide for family should be treated equally. This remains true whether there are natural children, adopted children or only parents and extended family (or not!)

Therefore, all marriages should be recognized by the state.
Further, we don't distinguish about death, do we? We distinguish about funerals. My take is that we should treat marriage the same way. In fact, most communities require that the a marriage license be issued prior to a ceremony taking place.

Elle, nice try, but unfortunately, the discussion about sex vs gender is more culturally confused than even you have pointed out. Many of my gay friends would be horribly upset with the characterization you pointed out, while others would be right behind you. Oh Well.

"Equality under the law shall not be abridged on account of gender."

That's a start.

It was the "hurried, messy legalistic" approach that started the civil rights successes. Until then it didn't matter a hill of beans what anyone else thought, as far as actually being allowed to participate in society as a whole human being.
Now, do I think that passing a law will end the problem? No. There's much social work to be done after that. But FIRST we protect rights, and then we change attitudes, as far as I'm concerned.