>Jim,
>
>It depends what you think marriage is for.
Well put. This is the crux of the entire question.

>If marriage is simply an event to celebrate committment, then of course nobody should be discriminated against.

This mirrors my thoughts exactly.


>If marriage is society's way of encouraging and supporting unions that create stable homes for kids, then the kids' interests have to be paramount, not the perceived rights of adults who feel left out.

I'm not trying to be snide, but if this is the intent of a marriage would you consider a man and woman with no intent to have children as being married or in a "civil union?" What about people physically unable to have children due to age or some physical disability? If you consider these as marriages (I do) then I think by extension a gay couple is "married."