Well, so too are most of mine, and many of these are four-square, stand-up guys into the bargain.

Seriously, I take exception the article’s characterisation of those of us who prefer variety as ’sluts’. Isn’t the freedom to choose either to commit or to ’spread the love’ what the Sexual Revolution was all about?

” . . . the very fact that having these relationships are relegated to second-class status by the state may have something to do with why they aren’t enduring.”

Methinks this observation speaks to the furtive nature assignations in the setting of ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ in general. Only 40 years have passed since the advent of the ‘gay rights’ movement. It will likely take several generations for homosexuals to disavow behaviors acquired during nearly two millenia of Judeo-Christian repression — that is if they are in need of revision, and I honestly don’t think they are. I certainly hope not: “To have the same law for the lion & the ox is oppression”, as Blake said.

This statement also falsely presupposes that heterosexual relationships are paradigms of commitment, and that this stability is derived in large measure from the parties having said ‘I do’. I hear Joni Mitchell singing “we don’t need no piece of paper from the city hall, keepin’ us tried and true.”

Oh, and just who is ‘Mark Simpon’?

That’s very funny. ;-)

Martha Maybe the UK forgets they are the only the size of HALF of our west coast states.

National chauvinist and patriotic bullshit like this is counterproductive. GLBT folks anywhere in the world have much more in common with each other than with their fellow citizens. Our job is to support our brothers and sisters everywhere, not to figure out which straight society is best, because none of them are very good.

Right now our efforts should be focused on finding ways to save the lives of our African and Iranian brothers and sisters who are under sentence of death if they’re ‘exposed.’

Instead of carping about whether Obama or Cameron is the worst bigot, link to http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/ and then link to the Iraqi and Iranian groups in Canada and England struggling to help them get asylum or keep the safe houses in Iraq open.

The comments were also really a semantic argument with very little if any substance. I also was appalled that not ONE person mentioned – that even if 8 had not passed – the gays who were married there WERE & STILL ARE, and would be even if California courts wipe it away again UNEQUAL. They are still second class citizens in the eyes of the law of the land.

DOMA – makes all this literally moot. Do you really think that the current Supreme court would somehow overturn DOMA? Obama has said he plans to, and I wish him Godspeed. However this seems more like the new civil war – as states rush to ratify and codify the inequality – and honestly if you choose to fight on marriage, you will literally see a wider rift and a harder fight, and a new war from the religious right.

The rights are not the issue, not for Mr. Simpson, or any of the people in the UK, obviously – everyone wants that. This petty infighting reminds me of the last crisis of conscious – the AIDS crisis. Working in ACT UP and seeing the divide & conquer tactics (very alive in the comment board here) –your either with me or against me, how utterly BUSHIAN. Really – until we can have a civil conversation about this, and realize we are not nor should we be considered a monolithic group or striving for the same thing – then can we really get anywhere. And Mr. Belonsky – you should really get over yourself as the arbiter of all things gay…seriously.

USA has 2 tiny states (MA and CT) that offer legal gay marriage and these do not count federally or even match all the same laws (ie: immigration by marriage) that straight marriage gets.

Maybe the UK forgets they are the only the size of HALF of our west coast states.

Marriage is a legal state affording over a thousand legal protections that domestic prtnerships cant come close to.
Civil Marriage for all (like in Canada) is a civil right that Americans are sorely lacking.

The UK’s partnerships actually do confer all the rights and privileges of straight marriage in everything but name, the only western country that does actually. Several other EU countries have some semblance of partnerships, unions etc, but they do not not confer all the rights and privileges of marriage. Spain where same-sex marriage is legal, actually recognizes the UK’s civil partnerships as valid. I’m not defending civil partnerships but Bill Perdue in his post on this article is right, the UK is way ahead of the U.S. on gay rights. Are you aware that prior to the 2004 Civil Partnership legislation, gay Brits could and still can sponsor their foreign born partners to live and work in the UK even without a civil partnership? We don’t even have that right in the U.S. Further, the UK Parliament is about to bring in even more equality legislation in April 2009 that will include proposals for all public bodies to promote equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people in addition to their current duty to consider how their spending decisions, employment practices and service delivery affect people whatever their race, disability or gender. Members of Parliament there have confirmed that the duty to promote equality will include gender identity alongside sexual orientation.

We have none of that in the U.S. Though I’m in favor of full marriage equality, if UK straights are eventually allowed to form civil partnerships, then the argument for equality will be over. As a native Brit with dual British and American citizenship, I can live with that as opposed to nothing. I strongly believe that the government, any government should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses for religious marriages, let the respective cults handle that while state governments should continue to issue civil marriage licenses in compliance with the separation of church and state in the U.S.

However, the State of Israel recognizes all legal foreign marriages, whether they’re civil or religious. So, same-sex couples can go to Canada or South Africa (no residency or citizenship requirements) and return to Tel Aviv with a valid document in hand. Which is more than we can say for ‘Murika and the land of the “free.”

Actually Israel, whilst not having a legal form of gay marriage, recognise civil partnerships and unions contracted abraod.

But you don’t have equality under the law. If you move to Israel with your “civil union” it will mean nothing. Don’t fool yourselves…you’ve settled for a compromise that may just last a while longer after we obtain FULL equality in the USA.

In the last decade, the situation has improved most dramatically in Scotland (where the Tories are practically non-existent as a political force). Whereas Northern Ireland remains hopelessly homophobic. England and Wales are somewhere in between.

Their civil partnerships, unlike civil unions and partnerships in the US do seem to include most of the rights and privileges of marriage. They’re way ahead of us on that as well as employment and housing discrimination laws and even have a hate crimes law. It should be noted though that much of the progress in England came at the insistence of the EU.

Civil partnerships in England are still a form of second class status and will remain so until the same state instrumentalities are used for all partnering, regardless of sexual orientation.

The situation in England is changing. Across Europe there’s a rising tide of homophobic and islamophobic violence and murders organized by right wing not so neo-fascists. In addition, spurred on by Bush and the christers, a new christian bigot movement is growing.

In the US civil unions and partnerships lack virtually all of the 1200 or so rights and privileges of marriage and cannot be compared to civil partnerships in England.

Mark Simpson’s description of the rights accompanying civil unions in California (actually it’s civil parterships there, with civil unions in places like New Jersey and Vermont) indicates that he’s either a liar or an oaf. In any case he should stfu.

Queerty: you may start losing British readers if you don’t stop it with the bashing of Britain and British gay people. We don’t control the laws that are passed and I’ll be damned if I will feel pressured by Americans when we at least have equality under the law unlike you.

And I agree – can’t convert the unconvertable. And would not even try. But, just as you and previously agreed over the bomb of a “strategy” that the Vote No folks used with minority groups, there are people in the clusters of “non-convertible” that can, indeed, be converted. And appealing to them on both prongs works. And I whole heartedly agree with the need for much more voter education so that people understand that there really are significant rights attached to marriage.

A civil partnership is a marriage here in the UK, in so far as all my straight friends ask ‘when are you getting married?’ so I think is very easy for us over here to take our equality for granted.

You guys need to get yours, and I back you and wish you luck.

a) Most of the ignorance you see along this thread is emblematic of why we need real life stories over abstractions. When you got this sort of stupidiy running rampant it becomes more dififcult to explain things to people unless you have concrete examples.

b) I am not saying that discussing the real world suffering will change everyone. The reality is that opressed groups will always have internalized hatred within the group.

Did you know for example that the black head of the National Baptist Convention referred to Martin Luther King in derogatory terms because he felt that King was being uppidy? Did you know that there were slaves who preached against ending slavery?

The reality is not that we are trying to convince everyone. There will always been self destructive people who want to take the rest of the world down with them. As per several of the posters here.

The difference is to end confusion for the great majority of people who may not understand what’s happpening or why it’s important. Not to change those who will never see because they do not want to see.