My point is that the Catholic Church does not have the moral high ground here. They don’t want gays to get married because they want society to continue to believe all gays are perverts. That’s the religious belief they’re trying to impose on everyone. And isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

Is my calling out the Catholic Church on their documented cases of child abuse anymore excessive than the Catholic Church calling all gays perverts? Because that’s the reasoning behind the Catholic Church not wanting to accept same-sex marriage. According to Catholicism, gay sex is a perversion. They demand that gays be celibate. I know this because I’m gay and I was raised Catholic.

“There was a time, around the initial Vermont era when the social left was interested in civil unions.”

You gloss over this like it’s a simple fact. Ho-hum. They said civil marriage, then they changed their minds. Well… no. There were at least SOME moderate folks who bought this line of thinking over the vehement protests of the radicals who said, “Don’t buy it. This is really about an aggressive restructuring of society.” And you know what? In that case, the radicals were right. It really WASN’T about civil unions. They really did want more. Which is fine. But you have to take this into account when you talk about why moderates aren’t out there proposing civil unions. Because you and I both know that your position not withstanding, it’s not actually just about hospital visitation and fair tax laws. The activists have stated as much.

As for you analogy, there are all sorts of problems with it. I agree that there is a “hole in the road.” That is, that gay couples have serious problems that need address. But then you say that ther response is to “fill it with gravel.” This begs the question. Gravel is the exact thing you fil pitholes with. But is marriage the exact thing needed to address the problems gay couples face? That depends on your definitions. I could just as easily say, if everyone agrees with North and the real issue is medical powers of attorney and tax laws, the “gravel” we need is reform of those laws.

To people who disagree with you, sure, you have potholes. But you are not proposing to fill them with gravel, you are proposing to fill them with, say, gold bars. which makes people wonder. Hey. If all they want to do is fil the holes, why are they demanding gold bars? Huh. that makes me kind of suspicious. I wonder if they are up to something. Later, you director of Public Works, named Andrew Sullivan, comes out and says, well, actually, it turns out what we really wanted all along was reparations and that’s the reason for the gold bar thing. It was never really about filling the potholes.

And people are even more suspicious than when they started.

Here are the facts: Even if some moderates on the right and left got together and managed to puch civil unions through, the debate would go on just like it is right now. Because the activists on the right really do want to prevent gay people from gaining an equal place in the culture. And activists on the left really do want to gain an equal place in the culture.

Nobody fights over gravel, because nobody cares about it.

While the idea of having the government out of it completely garners at least some libertarian support it’s also so politically unfeasible as to be a non-option. But to be clear I wouldn’t feel I had any place to complain if the government got out of the marriage business entirely.