My question was not about domestic partnerships, but about what the law should be after marriage equality passes if traditionally religious people want to run adoption agencies and fertility clinics using their values about marriage rather than yours.

It is true I prefer mutual beneficiary arrangements like the one in Salt Lake City, and I’d like to see them on a federal level (that actually makes me a liberal in this debate compared to most of my allies). I can live with domestic partnerships as part of a compromise that protects the freedom of traditionally religious people.

As for cozying up, it’s quite complicated. Are you willing to work with the Nation of Islam? There are some issues you both support, but probably not every issue. There are other examples, it’s not simple, and I’d appreciate you recognizing that. There is one prominent marriage-defense organization that I once worked with very successfully, until I found out the appalling extent of their bigotry. I will never work with them again. Once I gather all my information, I will blog about their hidden attitudes and maybe publish a major expose in one of the publications I’ve been working with. There are other groups that do annoying things like call themselves “pro-family” (I blogged about them) but I’m willing to work with them nonetheless. It’s a balancing act, and I’d appreciate some slack because unlike some people on my side I do draw lines in the sand.

I did none of the things “religious conservatives” did in your post, and I’m a religious conservative. I hate it when religious Christians fire Jews, but the fact is an many, many positions having nothing to do with practicing religion, an exception to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does allow people to discriminate on the basis of religion.

As for “when it comes to governmental public policy we all should be equal.” The only way to keep that so is to vote for the CMPA. Right now, nobody is proposing firing teachers and suing journalists who use their own definition of marriage, even if as in 48 states, the gay definition is not legal. But gay advocates have said they expect to punish such people if they don’t adopt the gay definition of marriage in a marriage-equality state. So everyone is no longer equal. For everyone to be equal, the CMPA must pass.

I would personally be OK with domestic partnerships/civil union arrangements, however that does not exist on the federal level, so marriage is the most logical path. The problem I have with you is that you are against domestic partnerships (not fighting it now that it’s a fact, I know) and also cozy up to people that would deny my partner and I any legal recognition!

It was the religious conservatives who got upset when sodomy laws were ruled unconstitional. It was the religious conservatives who wanted to ban gay teachers from having the right to be teach.
It is the religious conservatives who want gays out of high security and military positions.
It is the religious conservatives who want the right to fire me on that basis.

Would you agree with the right of a religious christian to fire someone for being a jew if that is justified based on that christian’s chosen interpretation? Nobody is going into Rev Fred Phelps church and telling what he can or cannot preach, however when it comes to governmental public policy we all should be equal.

Seriously, I’m not trying to control your life, but it will be far less confusing for everyone if you used a last initial. Please?

Your questions are completely fair, and I’m glad you asked them. I would be comfortable with a law, depending how it was written, that gave you all three of those rights, as long as it did not take away any freedoms away from me – such as the freedom to run my business and do my job as a journalist or teacher using my own beliefs and values about marriage instead of being forced to use yours.

The fact is, the initiative in California takes nothing away from you but the word marriage, yet it protects millions of people like me from lots of potential harms to our freedom. People who want everyone “to live freely and equally” should vote for the California Marriage Protection Act, because in the past, no gay person was fired or fined or jailed for behaving consistently with his belief that marriage knows no gender. But some gay and lesbian activists have supported precisely those punishments for traditionally religious people in “marriage equality” states who have the chutzpah to continue to run their lives as if their beliefs about marriage are true instead of yours.

If you have any questions about what I mean specifically in the above paragraph, I would be happy to answer them and give you as many links and explanations as you need. Some supporters of gay marriage honestly don’t know about the ways their cause severely restricts other people’s freedom.

However, if you are fully aware of the ways “marriage equality” limits my freedom, and you don’t care and you plan to oppose the California initiative because you prefer the word “marriage” to “domestic partnership,” then you are proving me right when I say the American gay and lesbian community is the most selfish domestic movement since the Hippies.

That’s not selfish! That’s only wanting to live freely and equally like everyone else!

You’re such a good person!