no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?