Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?
I wasn't aware that GLAAD opposed civil unions, but I'll take your word for it. One reason they would oppose civil unions for everyone would be that such a law would have zero chance of passing, perhaps?

I'm still not won over by the litigation agenda argument. Every proponent of gay marriage that I've read has had much more practical concerns on their minds. They want to be able to share health bennies, pass on property when they die, have the right of medical power of attorney, etc. They want the same deal that committed couples get when they're straight. I don't know, I think you might need to produce some essay or literature about the plans to sue the Catholic Church into oblivion. If that's the plan, surely there are some high-placed people discussing it, and I doubt it's been kept private. Extremist groups usually broadcast their agenda.

Short of some sort of evidence, I'm going to have to file your theory in the "Possible But Highly Unlikely" folder.