Civil Unions?

This is simply not true (and having been corrected on this point before, I find your insistence on this point to be intentionally obtuse). There are numerous examples of the relationships of same-sex couples being recognized as "marriage" in a great many historical--and in a growing number of modern--societies. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name a few of the more well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. These Native American examples are particularly interesting, due to the wealth of sociological literature from the colonial era regarding the study of the "berdache." Heck, the U.S. government even accepted We'wha--a Zuni "lhamana" (or "man-woman")--as an ambassador in 1885-86.

And yes, We'wha was biologically male and had a "husband" in her tribe.

More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstred a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let's not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emporer Nero publically entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire). The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of Western judaeo-christianity and islam---and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse--the rabid opposition same-sex couples and their relationships that we see today seems more than a little odd.

I think the Supreme Court of Massachussetts has written the best available response to this point...

A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide...This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...[A]s matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.

TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

what do you mean when you say "Western Civilization"? European Civilization? Because that's the only way what you say could be true.

It harms the basic civil rights of all citizens to allow a group of citizens to use the law to further the aims of their religion. That's why the First Amendment forbids any sort of religoius establishment.

TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.