The media wants you to believe that the issue of gay "rights" (they seem to have most every single right availabale to every other American, save for the right to marry within their gender) is rending the nation in two:
National poll: mixed views on gay-rights issues
But when you look at the results, the responses among all questions is quite uniform:
By 56-37 percent, voters said the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military should be repealed
By 55-38 percent, voters said they did not want their state to allow same-sex couples to marry. However, by 57-38 percent, they favored allowing such couples to form civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights and by 53-40 percent they supported allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
_Also by 50-44 percent, voters supported the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
_Asked if society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters said yes, while 21 percent said there's too little attention and 22 percent said it's "about right."
So where are the "mixed views"? You have 50% plus of respondents agreeing to give gays everything they want, except the right to call a same-sex union a "marriage". Seems like a consistant majority of Americans hold the same opinion here (especially on the marriage/union issue), with only the media and the radicalized portion of the gay community trying to force a split within the nation's population.
An issue of "rights"? Hardly. It's one issue and one only, over whether to change the 5,000 year definition of marriage to suit the needs of a group of people who have unusual sexual preferences. And here's why you can't do it, incidentally - it's a slippery slope to social breakdown. I posted on it over two years ago, while making a sarcastic case for polygamy:
The pro-gay marriage crowd will say, "If two people love each other, regardles of their sex, shouldn't they be allowed to be married? If two men or two women wish to marry, isn't denying them that right based on the sexual gender of the two partners discrimination?"
OK, fine then. The sex of the partners is now ruled as irrelevant - only love between two consenting adults matters.
Now, if the gender of the couple is irrelevant, why shouldn't other factors of the marriage compact be irrelevant as well? Why does it have to be "TWO consenting adults"? If a man and two women are in love, why should they be denied the opportunity to marry as a threesome? If the sex of the partners is now irrelevant, cannot one make the case that the number of people involved in the marriage compact are irrelevant as well?
Look at the opportunities polygamy provides....!
Americans get this, and yet we'll give gays everything they want, including recognized unions under a different name. If the media and the gay community want to fight this out in the name of "rights", let's pose the polygamy question back to them as well. Let them explain why one perversion of the definition of marriage is OK, while another is not....