Submitted by a curious Czech in Los Alamos NM USA HELP!

I'll answer it this way – gay marriage and civil unions are two separate things that serve two separate purposes.

If that's your position, it appears you no longer require an answer to: "2) What does gay marriage provide that some version of “civil union” does not?"

Ah, so your rebuttal of his claim is, “The two statements you made seem to me to be contradictory.” That’s far more to the point, but not originally well communicated. Instead, you appeared to be saying, “demanding equal treatment under the law amounts to demanding the right to break it.” Sometimes poor communication happens, that’s why we clarify.

Indeed.

But David still has only danced around my original post on that point. I'll try to restate it more clearly.

The rule for marriage now is that only a man and a woman may marry each other. I do not see how adding one exception makes it more equal.

David's answer was to ask why we shouldn't allow anyone to marry anyone else in whatever combination they chose. That certainly seems to me like he was granting the validity of my point by saying that granting one exception would not, but granting every exception certainly would.

I grant that he's right, but it doesn't really go to my point. In fact, I said pretty much the same thing back in the blog post. His real question was "why shouldn't we?" and I think I answered that question as well.

Evidently poor communication again–but I hope I’ve provided the clarification you need to get back to the point of contention.

Okay, I'll grant that he was trying to address part of my point from an entirely different direction (though I'll say that he could simply move to one of the states that grant more generous allowances for civil unions, and there are those which do). I'll answer it this way – gay marriage and civil unions are two separate things that serve two separate purposes.

I believe I addressed the claim he made in that point. Here's what he said: "The argument for gay marriage isn�t 'but we really want to'. It is that as citizens of the United States of America, everyone should have an equal right to marry the person they love."

I don't see a lot of daylight between those two sentences. When you drill down to the center of every law, there's a mechanicsm that prevents someone from doing something they really want to do.

Ah, so your rebuttal of his claim is, "The two statements you made seem to me to be contradictory." That's far more to the point, but not originally well communicated. Instead, you appeared to be saying, "demanding equal treatment under the law amounts to demanding the right to break it." Sometimes poor communication happens, that's why we clarify.

So long as the marriage law is equal, and David had yet to address my point that it is,

Incorrect. David's rebuttal of your claim was "There are over 200 rights that you gain in Washington with a marriage license; a homosexual civil union gets you 30 of those rights." At this point you can argue that his evidence is incorrect, or that it doesn't prove his claim of inequality under the law…but your statement that he didn't address your point says you couldn't follow his argument well enough to know what he was talking about. Evidently poor communication again–but I hope I've provided the clarification you need to get back to the point of contention.

I’m sure it’s much easier to argue when you can cast the opposing viewpoint to be anything you want… But the point David made was that the exception to the law is justified by the principle of equal treatment under the law. You might want to address that claim, instead of substituting a different one.

I believe I addressed the claim he made in that point. Here's what he said: "The argument for gay marriage isn’t 'but we really want to'. It is that as citizens of the United States of America, everyone should have an equal right to marry the person they love."

I don't see a lot of daylight between those two sentences. When you drill down to the center of every law, there's a mechanicsm that prevents someone from doing something they really want to do. Polygamists undoubtedly love all the people with whom they are entangled, but that has never been a reason to overturn polygamy laws, nor should it be. So long as the marriage law is equal, and David had yet to address my point that it is, changing it only to satisfy the desires of a minority is foolhardy. It's tinkering with something that is vastly important to our society on what is essentially a whim.