HERE'S A BIT OF GOVERNMENT IRONY...

Regarding same-sex committed relationships. According to AG Eric Holder, "This ruling (the high court's June decision) marked a historic step toward equality for all American families," Holder said. "And since the day it was handed down, the Department of Justice has been working tirelessly to implement it in both letter and spirit."

Congress would not allow Utah to be annexed as a state unless the Utah state constitution would outlaw polygamy (one husband with multiple wives). Also, the US government began seizing church property; but gave it back once polygamy was outlawed. A "family" is not constituted of people of the same sex - "As the basic unit for raising children, anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrifocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a husband, his wife, and children; also called nuclear family); avuncular (for example a brother, his sister, and her children); or extended family in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family."

The polygamous family is as much - if not MORE - of a "family" than one headed by people of the same sex, who cannot produce children or continue a family bloodline. Perhaps polygamy should be legalized, if a state's right to not recognize same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. The legalization of same-sex "marriages" is (ostensibly) based upon "equal protection under the law". I'm sure there a sheep-lovers who would like to "marry" one of their flock also, so let's legalize that while we're at it. There are also those perverts who would enjoy having sex with their own children, so let's let them get "married" too! They are equally entitled to the protection of the law. Of course, NEITHER of those suggestions are made seriously, but rather to point out the wrong thinking behind same-sex "marriages".

The compromise solution to the resistance against same-sex relationships may simply be in the desired appellation itself. Reserve the definition of "marriage" in it's originally intended context, and use "Civil Union" to describe same-sex committed relationships. There is no harm in allowing them the same privileges as those of a "married" man-woman relationship, but the thrust of the argument by gays seems to be one of SEMANTICS, as opposed to something more practical! Legal recognition would provide gays with 100% of something, fighting over semantics may bring them 100% of nothing.

The "Log Cabin Republicans", composed of gays who vote Republican, are supporting same-sex "marriage". Which begs the question, how far do they wish to push the "log" into the "cabin"? Just my 2¢ worth.