Guess how many for gay couples who marry legally in the four states that currently allow them:

“A Federalist Case for Gay Marriage: Let Each State Decide the Issue for Itself”

Gay rights are family rights. Support love and equality. Vote NO on Proposition 8 in California and NO on Ballot Question 1 in Connecticut.

(Video created by the We Are Family Foundation)

And vote YES for change — elect Barack Obama.

(Song by Stacy Beyer)

I was proud and delighted to be home in Connecticut on Friday when the State Supreme Court handed down its decision saying that marriage is a right for all consenting adult couples. This is an issue that’s dear to Rudi’s and my hearts, and we look forward to the day when this simple human right is recognized as the law of the land and not just certain individual states.

California, one of three forward-thinking states that acknowledge the equal rights of same sex couples, has a ballot initiative on its ballot in November that seeks to introduce discrimination into its laws. Proposition 8 has been spun by its proponents as a helpful initiative to save nonprofit and religious organizations from being forced to part ways with their mission statements. Since no one can force any church to marry any couple — gay or straight — this just doesn’t hold much water. Nor does the concern that the flood of people rushing to marry will bankrupt state, local, or federal coffers. I mean, really, it would be far more helpful, if that’s your fear, to forbid rights to large corporate CEOs.

If you live in California, I ask you not to deny my brother, my best friend, and many other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens rights that you and I have the blessing of being able to take for granted. If you live elsewhere, but have the ear of those who will be voting on this issue November 4th, please talk to them. There’s a lot of misinformation out there and it would be easy to be confused about what the ballot initiative actually stands for. Please vote No on California Proposition 8 to keep human rights a priority in one of our largest states.

I’m proud of the Hartford Courant for penning the Jan. 21 editorial, “Revisit Same-Sex Marriage.”

I think the modern, prevailing attitude amongst younger generations is one of inclusion. I hope that state legislatures see it as a postive move forward sooner rather than later and make marriage a legal institution for everyone.

A while ago now, Erik and I were IMing about some of the court setbacks that gay marriage and civil unions have faced in the last few months.

I once again suggested that we change the concept of marriage altogether in the future. A civil union, open to any two unrelated adults, should confer all legal and governmental benefits — Social Security, shared custody of children, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc. — that are currently offered to married people. Marriage proper could be a religious ceremony, offered to certain (or all) people depending on the tenets of the church.

Erik, I believe, (Correct me if I’m misrepresenting your views here) agrees with this idea in theory. But he argues that “civil union” as a term seems very bland and businessy and second-class when compared with “marriage.” And what would one use as a verb? “Unionized” has a very different connotation. “Partnered” has platonic definitions that lends itself to confusion.

So we thought we’d open the discussion up to you. Is there a better term that we could start to use to connote all the romantic feelings that ought to accompany such a union while simultaneously and unambiguously explaining what sort of relationship one is entering into?

The Senate did not manage enough support to force the Federal Marriage Amendment bill to a vote. (Thank goodness!) Now that we’ve taken that waste of time and energy off the table, can we please insert a federal finger into more important pies like an exit strategy for Iraq or a plan to institute the Kyoto Protocol environmental standards or a national living wage act?

Or if we’ve given up all hope of our elected officials actually trying to solve federal problems, maybe we can ask them instead to consider equally wacky federal amendments to appease other key constituents, such as the amendment that all adults over the age of sixteen must drive an SUV made in the United States.