Well, giving a book to try to gain points on a topic of argument probably isn't the best anniversary present, and books given for that reason aren't likely to be read no matter the occasion, but this is the reason why I enjoy Dan's writing when it comes to relationship/sex advice and LGBT rights. How great to see them get rolled up into one post.

The best argument is not to argue.

The word "marriage" has a lot of religious baggage, regardless of the fact that we are talking about specific legal rights of civil marriage.

Your partner isn't telling you that you aren't worthy. He just hasn't separated the legal concepts from the religious accoutrements from his upbringing. He'll get it, given time.

You haven't said he's out signing petitions or donating money to advance his views, so drop it!

We all make mistakes and hold the occasional odd--even abhorrent--opinion. So long as he's not hurting anyone, who cares? It seems to me that what you're trying to do is control his opinions. Don't you want the freedom in your relationship to be wrong without having someone argue with you all day long?

Give it a pass and he may come around--or he may not. Are you really willing to risk the quality of your relationship over this? If so, then you may not prepared for far more consequential disagreements in the future.

Don't be a "right" fighter. People can disagree. You are both so young and you'd be surprised how people can change.

A Civil Union is the equivalent of letting gays on the bus, but making them ride in the back.

You let him off too light, Dan. Would your advice have been the same if the letter read:

I'm a 26-year old man madly in love with my 25-year old girlfriend. We've been dating since September. She's just about perfect in my book. However, an old issue resurfaced recently that I thought had resolved itself in a previous conversation: she doesn't think marriage is important if civil unions are available with all of the same rights.

or

I'm a 26-year old woman madly in love with my 25-year old boyfriend. We've been dating since September. He's just about perfect in my book. However, an old issue resurfaced recently that I thought had resolved itself in a previous conversation: he doesn't think marriage is important if civil unions are available with all of the same rights.

You'd be talking about commitment issues and what the other person wants or is getting out of the relationship. He gets a little slack because of the fundy background, but not a lot. If he's willing to trade peace with his parents at the cost of denying his relationship, that spells serious trouble down the road (look for another letter in 5 years about how hurt NASA is about spending Christmas alone again because his boyfriend is at home with his family and he's not invited).

I don't think we're into DTMFA territory (yet), but NASA needs to get some clarity around this. If it's a purely hypothetical disagreement, it's a bad sign but not deadly. If it's a fundamental values issue (like monogamy vs. non-monogamy), they're doomed and better off splitting now before they're in deeper. Of course, the flip side is they haven't been together long enough to be talking seriously about marriage, but if this is the first serious foray into the topic, there's a large, crimson-colored flag being waved around vigorously.

I summed up by saying I was hurt that he thought we were unworthy of the word

His first mistake is taking it personally.

I'm gay and I don't care about gay marriage. Seriously: it's a crappy institution. It's wrong that we CAN'T get married, but honestly, we shouldn't want to. Unless you want to get married and he won't there's not an issue here.

if this is the biggest argument in your relationship, you're pretty freaking lucky.

Separate but equal didn't work before and it doesn't work now.

There is no basis at law for treating two individuals differently than two other individuals who are similarly situated. So as far as the law goes, if the state is allowing marriage, it must allow marriage. That said, the whole notion of "marriage" carries such heterosexist and religious baggage I don't really want any part of it, personally. The solution: the state should get out of the marriage business and only sanction civil unions--gay or straight. The point is, the BF's position isn't necessarily one which connotes inferiority. NASA obviously knows what underlies the BF's position, but in my case, my issues with "marriage" relate to a rejection of what it stands for, and has nothing to do with acceptance of "separate-but-equal" inequality.

@10: Well said. Reading this letter made me think about how little sense it makes that there is even a legal difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union." Everything should be a civil union, as far as the government is concerned. Marriages should be entirely religious. For example, there is no government recognition for a coming-of-age rite such as Catechism. Instead we just have graduated levels of adulthood as determined by the rights someone possesses at certain ages.

the key is this:

"he doesn't think gay marriage is important if civil unions are available with all of the same rights."

at the moment, civil unions don't have all of the same rights, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be cool if there were an equal (and separate) thing called civil unions available to everyone.

I am basically going to reiterate the same thing said by 10 and 11. The most logical solution (as I see it) isn't to allow marriage for everyone, but rather for the government to grant civil unions, and remove "married" or "marriage" from all legal forms and documents. Let churches perform weddings/sanction marriages (or not) as they see fit, but it shouldn't be acknowledged by the government unless they get a civil union license.

Separate but equal is ALWAYS a lie. It is a lie told by those in power trying to keep those not in power from getting any power. If it were the same thing, then it would be called the same thing always.

@10 I absolutely agree with you. In California you can have a Civil Union if you are gay, but not if you are straight. What's up with that? What if I don't want to be married with all of the religious over tones that carries, but want a civil union? Why can't I have one? I look forward to the day that the State of California is sued by a heterosexual couple who prefers a Civil Union over a Marriage but cannot have what they want due to discrimination.

As an add-on to my comment at 13: on the other hand, as long as the government insists on legally recognizing "marriages", I am going to of course maintain that gay couples deserve the same legally-recognized rights to marriage as straight couples. Maintain the fight if the gov't doesn't start being logical!

The Civil Rights struggle didn't end in '64, or '68, when major laws were enacted. It's still going on today. And those laws didn't come about suddenly, either.

So w/ history as a guide, the struggle for Gay Civil Rights will also be slow. Don't let something like this get between you, because even if he agreed w/ you, it's highly unlikely that either of you will live to see a "final victory." These things are made up of many, many small victories & civil unions is one of those victories. It's not the end, it's just a step. And we've a long way to go. Hang in there.

Dan, tell me I am remembering this correctly:

Didn't you write a piece, oh, say fifteen years ago, that essentially argued that "now is not the time for us to demand marriage rights?" I remember reading it and disagreeing like hell with you, but also gaining a better understanding of the movement as a whole, particularly your description of the effect of the institution of marriage on gay culture.

Obviously, it has been years and a lot has changed and evolved, but I swear I remember this op-ed-like piece from you about why marriage wasn't the ideal for the gay rights' movement. I know that your position on the subject has evolved and that you (as do I) strongly advocate for marital rights for same sex couples - I take no issue with your position then or now - I just want to know that I remember history correctly.

Also, the boyfriend in the letter writer's scenario may hold similar beliefs about the effect of the institution of marriage on gay culture.

Linda Lingle sounds like a stage name for a drag queen.

One good argument is that for legal reasons, its not really possible to carve out a t rue "just the same as marriage". If DOMA is repealed, then likely a marriage from Boston is legal across 50 states, DC, and some foreign countries. We have an established legal framework for marriage.

Civil unions? Not so much.

Maybe he's just not that into you.

Except when he's turned on.

I think the government should only be in the business of civil unions for both straight & gay couples. Let religous groups define marriage for them, but get the government out of defining marriage.

While I can totally understand the "government should just stop using the word marriage" argument, and frankly would be more than happy in such a world, that's not a good reason to stop fighting for marriage rights. Changing the legal status of marriage in the US is an even more extreme proposition than seeking marriage rights for gays, and at the end of the day, I hold equality before the law of higher importance than secularism.

I've gotten into arguments with a few guys (including the one I'm currently dating) who claim not to be in favor of gay marriage simply because they aren't in favor of marriage. Lets fight one battle at a time shall we? Plus, gay marriage is clearly a step away from the standard religious understanding of marriage. So if the long term goal is to move away from that, gay marriage is arguably a step in the right direction.

Plus, gay marriage is arguable the gateway to our other missing civil rights. If we're recognized as a "suspect class" by the Supreme Court, we've got a strong platform to sue for employment protections and all the other exciting everday rights we really ought to enjoy. And if we get the legal right to marriage, it's a big blow to the social animus against recognizing us as valid human beings. If we start getting married and at least some of us (I'd never suggest we ought to try to look "normal" for its own sake) turn out to be just as boring and normal as hetero couples, it's going to be hard for so many people to continue to see us as inherently immoral.

.. rob and i celebrated our first year of marriage yesterday ( yes thank you very much..) a woman i hadn't seen in years said this when i told her ( i ran into her at the grocery store just two hours ago )..' ' married ?.. where'd you guys do it?.. i mean it isn't legal yet.' i say ' honey..there are lots of things that i do that aren't legal ' and she says..' so you didn't do it in this state?' and i say ' no we did it in this state' and she says..' where?' and i say' in a church' and she says..' a church ?.. really? where?' and i say pilgrim's on b'way..across from the starbucks" and she says..'oh.. well that's a gay church ..'
people are so fucking stupid..

This isn't rocket science, NASA. Tell your boyfriend to read Brown v. Board of Education and get back to you when he understands why he's wrong.

The correct response to this letter is "fuck off." I just don't get all of you shallow motherfuckers who find conservatives sexy. WTF?

Yes, I suppose Anne Coulter may be good looking by objective standards, but who can get hard for a bitch with an attitude like that? Sexy is a combination of mind and body, and I don't care how hot a conservative body is, that hotness is negated by the very unsexy conservative mind.

@24 Mazel Tov, Rev Dr Riz. That's one wedding party I wish I would have crashed.

Don't bring politics into the bedroom. That's incredibly unhot. And don't act like he's less evolved than you because he has a different opinion. That's priggish.

Politics is the natural enemy of love, and you can't win either game if you try and play them at the same time.

@29: (cc:@28) huh? I care about politics so I can't imagine loving someone who disagrees with me fundamentally on politics. On the other hand, if politics isn't something important to you, I don't see how it would be a problem to your lovelife. I guess I just don't see a situation where bringing up politics with your partner could be a bad thing.

Your not supposed to talk politics at work, with some friends depending, but of course you can talk about it at home. Where else?

You think you got problems, buddy? Try dating a closeted guy who says his family & his straight friends must NEVER, EVER know. Tons of fun there.

This is a difference of opinion, not a deal-breaker.

This isn't politics, folks. This is these two men's lives. Marriage equality isn't about politics, it's about intrinsic human value. It's about whether your relationship is as valuable as your parents' relationships.

As someone who escaped from a fundie background, myself, I'd encourage you to find a non-fundie, gay-friendly church and both get involved in it. The pin dropped for me on marriage equality when I realized that it makes no sense for a minister at Church A to have the ability (granted by the state) to perform any marriages he wanted when the minister from Church B was not allowed the same. Not allowing gay marriage is not just an assault on the rights of gay people, but it's an undue privileging of some religious groups over others. Our country ended this debate years ago, and the world hasn't fallen apart. I hope and pray that the same happens for your country soon.

@ 24 - It's funny how straight support of gay rights sometimes melts away when we want a piece of their turf...

A 26 - What, do you give a politics quiz to all your potential sex partners? Sounds hot...

@ 30 -

Maybe you can't imagine loving someone who disagrees with you fundamentally on politics, but the letter writer is in exactly that situation. Politics are important to him, but he also is in love with this boy whose beliefs really bother him. Love is terribly unfair- we often fall for those who are unavailable, aren't interested, or have qualities that drive us crazy. It does happen.

In this situation, the writer can't hope to preserve the relationship if he obsesses with winning the political argument. Of course he's right, and he has the better arguments on his side, etc. But once he starts nagging this boy and giving him articles to read, the guy will just dig in his heels. Before long the whole love choo-choo will derail, or more likely sputter and then gradually come to a complete stop.

It's a matter of degree, of course. The writer has made his position clear, and he's perfectly free to say "no civil union for me" in case his boyfriend asks him to participate in one. But a tactical "we don't agree" stalemate is very different making it a priority to change someone's mind. He's either good enough to love the way he is now, or he isn't.

It's really pretty simple. Nowhere, even with the best of intentions, has civil union ever carried all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Putting aside the issue of whether the name itself conveys second class status (as it does), only marriage is marriage. Only marriage can be marriage.

Here in Canada, marriage is legal. If someone comes here from the United States or Britain, shiny new civil union certificate in hand, they are not considered married. If they haven't been living together long enough, they aren't even considered common law. Your boyfriend's civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage is nothing but a piece of paper the minute you leave your state. He can cross the state line, and marry someone else and he won't be a bigamist.

@22 "I think the government should only be in the business of civil unions for both straight & gay couples. Let religous groups define marriage for them, but get the government out of defining marriage. "

A lot of people said that crap during the marriage debate in Canada. They also brought up that all kinds of other interdependent relationships (like siblings sharing a house) should be recognized and allowed to share benefits.

Why is it a bunch of crap? Because it can't be done. Only marriage is a universally understood and recognized concept, in every country in the world, including the ones where the thought that religion has anything to do with marriage is considered absurd. Would you really want an American straight couple visiting family in Saudi Arabia to have to say to the Saudi government that no, they're not married?
.
One thing I noticed that once marriage was legalized in Canada, all the demand for getting government out of the marriage business vanished. So did all the talk about other forms of non-conjugal relationships being recognized. It was never anything but a smokescreen for bigotry, people who were so desperate not to let gay people have a place at the table that they preferred burning the table entirely. And also a few cowardly and stupid gay people who thought that enforcing second-class citizenship on EVERYONE was more achievable than demanding first-class citizenship for themselves. But there are millions of married straight people out there who were married civilly and couldn't give a toss what some church thinks about their marriage. They aren't ever going to give up their right to be married, and only a complete idiot would think otherwise.

So, Nightwing, what are you really - a bigot, and idiot or a gay coward?

Dan, you forgot to mention the book that made me decide to get married: The Commitment.

To add to what @37 said: The problem with getting rid of marriages in favor of civil unions for all people (straight or gay), which sounds like a great solution, is that the term "marriage" is too tied up in our legal, political, and cultural mindset to simply overturn it. The amount of capitol (both political and literal) it would take to change it would be basically impossible to bring together. That's why we're fighting for gay marriage; that way gay people can simply be included in an institution that already exists. And if the term "marriage" carries too many religious overtones for you...well, if you're not religious, why do you care? Call it whatever you want in your own life. Just know that the term needs to be there to get all of the rights you deserve.

happy to be canadian : )

@34 - Quiz? No, I just talk to them and see if we connect.

At your age, regardless of being gay or straight or anything in between, he may be too young to even consider a commitment like that. You're only 25/26! I didn't want to get married at that age, either.

Just let some time go on, and eventually he may change his tune. Your relationship may change and grow, it may not. You may change your mind, he may change his. But at your age, I personally think it's too young for anyone to marry, regardless of their sexuality.

How many 25-year-old men really care about marriage? Not a lot. Add in the fundy background and ... Check back in 5 years when his own self interest makes him wake up and smell the coffee.

NASA, it sounds as if marriage means a lot to you. It symbolises, not only legal equality, but social equality and acceptance in society. I understand your viewpoint, and I share it. To say that somebody is your husband or wife is a strong statement. There are people who have hidden decades long relationships from the world. But nobody would never dream of trying to hide their spouse. Being legally married is a way of showing your pride in your relationship.

However, it seems as if your boyfriend does not share your emotional attachment to the word marriage. To him, it's just about the legal rights. He does not think that the two of you are not "good enough" for marriage. He does not consider "same rights under different name" to be inferior, because, for him, the term "marriage" isn't all that great to begin with.

With that in mind, here's what you should explain to your boyfriend: It is perfectly acceptable for him to not care about the word marriage for HIS sake. However, because it is important to you, and you are his partner, it should be important to him for YOUR sake.

As an example, my boyfriend doesn't care about hearing 'I love you' all the time. I do. Instead of arguing with me about how I should know he loves me, or about why words don't mean much, he makes the effort to say he loves me. Why? Because it's important to ME, and I'm his partner. I do similar things for him.\

The state should not recognize marriage at all, for straights, gays or anyone. Marriage is a religious institution and should remain a religious institution, only. The state should, however, recognize civil unions between any set of consenting adults. A civil union is a contract like any other and adults are free to make contracts with each other (as long as the contracts don't violate some other law).
Government should simply get out of the marriage business completely and let religious institutions make whatever rules they want about marriage. Those rules only apply to those who are members of the institution, however.

Jesus Christ! They are not the same person, they are allowed to have different political opinions.

The answer to this the letter should have had to do with how the writer can settle the fuck down and stop shaking like a leaf every time his boyfriend doesn't have the same damn opinion as him. Stop freaking the fuck out. He is not the same person as you and if every time you don't agree on something you alternate between bouncing up and down in your chair like you are made of 100 tightly wound springs and nagging him endlessly all you will do is piss him off and drive him away.

Chill the hell out. Stop looking for new ways to convince him you are right and start looking for ways to be comfortable letting him be him just as you would like him to allow you to be you.

One of the nicest things you can do for your partner is to let them be wrong sometimes without rubbing their noses in it like they are a puppy. This issue will be important if you start thinking about getting married. Until then it is a political difference of opinion. He knows your position, you don't need to bring it up every two damn seconds.