Name of the Video? That's pretty courageous. (BTW It might be cool if Bill C. would use his statesman role for some good too.)
I am of a divided mind about gay marriage; on the one hand, it stricks me as being to cose to an attempt to approximate a bougeoise heteronormative lifestyle. Simone DeBeauvoir
Saaid about womens rights that the error was in trying to accomodate the normal, rather that starting from a position of making the normative meet thier needs. This is what gay peole need to do. we have had enpough experience with relatiobnships to start developing a notion of community based on our own relations. The heteronormative-marriage is set up around the nuclear family siuation of a m&f>children
and needs relative to that. Well gay peole onkly occasionally pair off in the same way but have much richer potential relationns with one another.
A simple example: why shouldn't someone who is hopitalized have a number of friends
be able to visit . Carry that to property etc. maybe the best thing is not to impart inheritance rtelative to greed, but maybe to compassionate giving to young gay people.
: Many options should be open. Edmond White remarked that in urban settings sex was casual., pairing of resulted in "giving too much and not receiieving enough" multiple friendships between gay men were the deepest and most significant relations prevailing between any people.
Whats' wrong with us.Even straight marriages, which usually have the object of children don't work well (%60) first marriage. Why can't the laws reflect our authentic needs. and why don't we work at them and cherish our differences.

Excellent observations, Mark Walsh! I couldn't agree more: it's a mixed thing, really. I don't want to "settle" for separate-but-equal; at the same time, the goal is equal treatment and I don't really care about "approximat[ing] a bougeoise heteronormative lifestyle" (love that!), which seems to be the consuming aspiration of a biggish chunk of homo activists. I think the kinds of potentials you raise are unlikely to be achieved in any existing society; nonetheless, it's good to keep in mind a goal that reflects the reality of ALL relationships, rather than focussing on nomenclature and form.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: I heart Al!

Mark, your response seems very thoughtful, but I think a crucial point isn't included in your reasoning. The issue with "marriage" is it's already codified into law. Every country, every state, every municipality knows exactly what rights and responsibilities go along with "marriage". Once a couple is "married", the couple always has the option to create a private, non-hetero-normative definition of their marriage, if the couple so chooses. If we, as a community, develop our own collective alternative to marriage, we would all have to agree what rights and responibilities attached to our alternative. We'd also have to get every municipality, state, and country to agree with us. I'm too old to wait. I'd take "marriage" in a heartbeat if I could.

Yay, Al!

Only, would he be saying this if he was running for President? Interesting, the difference. He couldn't say something like that if he were actually worried about the outcome of an election.

Sad but true.

GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!
GOD HATES FAGS!

Curious what you mean by "released this video." Did someone who works for him send you a link to a site? did you find this on your own?

President Al Gore is our 2012 Back-up if the Republicans steal the election again in 2008 (Read BBC's Greg Palast book) like Florida in 2000 and Ohio and other states in 2004. Al Gore for President of the United Nations! I will check out Current TV now!

God doesn't hate anybody. Read your Bible. God is Love! God, however, does hate hypocrisy hatred and unforgiveness.