Patrick is clearly a white guy, and I wonder if he would have suggested Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus rather than create a scene. I mean, she was still offered a seat, right? Who cares where it was on the bus…

Ted, I find it interesting that you took time to devote a whole post to the topic (and in return, I’m commenting on it). Reason being, neither of us are gay and – as you point out – are not directly affected by the issue whatsoever. As such, it just goes to show that it isn’t just ‘their case’ as Patrick puts it, but *everyone’s* case. We feel the need to discuss these things because it has a greater significance than if a gay chap can fill in a joint tax return. This kind of issue gets to the heart of where we’re going as a society, what we value, how we judge morality, and all kinds of things. So thanks, Ted.

I think that if more people would be agreeable to “civil unions,” same-sex couples would already have the legal protection many of them say this fight is really about in a lot more places.

The “all or nothing” mentality isn’t helping their case and only making both sides angrier at one another. That’s not how compromise happens.

We already have in this country something called ‘common law marriage’ which is a different kind or sort of marriage, so I don’t see the whole ‘separate but equal argument’ holding water. I believe there is real middle ground in civil unions which people on both sides of the debate could agree on. It would address the egresses actions preventing same sex couples from things like visiting each other in hospitals. It’s a way to move the ball forward, to take an incremental step.

To answer your question, there is a button on the right hand side of the page that says “Posts” right under the Subscribe To heading. That should allow you to subscribe to the new blog posts in a reader. Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter at @TedtheThird. I always tweet when I have a new post.

You are an excellent writer. And I find that once again, I agree wholeheartedly with what you think.

I hate to disappoint you in one area: you are not as unique as you think in your wish that the word “marriage” be changed to some other word. I talked to many people about this – at my old job, on the squad, friends – almost to a person, they said the same thing as you.

I am not a published writer and just prefer to happily “spew” my opinions out on line. But I do agree that words are very, very important and key to any well-made conversation, writing, posting, etc.

In my case, I don’t know if I am hung up about the specific use of “marriage”, however, but only because a complete lack of religious upbringing hasn’t made me associate the word with “a union between a man and a woman”. I just think of a marriage as a union between two consenting people. (And even then, I’ve been to a wedding that was an arranged marriage – would that, then, qualify as “consenting”? Hard to know… the married adults consented; but what about the couple that married that day?)

But I digress, like usual…

Aislínge

P.S. – How can I sign up to receive your posts via e-mail?

Perhaps using a different word for Same Sex Marriages would have the same effect, but I’m not sure it would. Our society is far ahead of where it was during Separate but Equal, New York’s passage proves that.

Thanks for your comment.