Why do gays want to become more conservative and be apart of the traditional institution known as marriage?

It is called,"Equal Rights"

Perhaps you have heard of the concept,or the term "Equal Protection Under The Law"? Otherwise known as the State treating all citizens equally in affairs of the State.Which Marriage is,and has been for quite some time now.No Church in the Country can perform a legally binding marriage without the consent of the state,because it is now effectively a civil contract.As such,it should,and will in the near future,be available to ALL citizens.

August

Another poster said it quite nicely:

"I agree, it's inevitable. Here in California we had a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. It passed, but was immediately challenged in court and defeated. The appeal just finished last week and the measure was defeated again. At both trials, anti-gay marriage people were given the opportunity to explain just how gay marriage harms us, and they were completely unable to--in fact they didn't even try very hard.

When we use the word 'marriage' we are talking about two completely different things. And we often confuse them, sometimes deliberately.

One definition of marriage is a church sacrament. A couple stands up before God and their families/friends, and a minister mumbles some words over them, and then they are considered joined in God's eyes. This is entirely church business, the govt. has nothing to say about it. Churches may decide whom they will marry and whom not.

But the other definition is a govt.-sanctioned legal partnership. Two people agree to enter a relationship whereby they are allowed to co-mingle finances, own property jointly, inherit without probate, and make certain decisions for one another. Basically, they become 'family' to one another. This is a civil right, a right of citizenship, and as such it should be available to all citizens.

The example I always like to use is: What if two old widows get to be great friends and decide to join one another and share their lives as 'family'. They're not lesbians, it's just about companionship. They pool their resources and buy a house together. They have the right to visit one another in the hospital, to execute one another's living will (or actual will, if it comes to that). They keep a joint bank account for household expenses. If one dies, the other 'owns' the house rather than inheriting it. Why should that not be allowed?

Issues like this end up usually being settled once and for all by a Supreme Court decision. This is how we solved issues like 'separate but equal' segregation, interracial marriage, 'sodomy', even abortion. Once the USSC decided, that was it. And I think that will eventually happen in this issue too. Maybe not THIS Supreme Court, but sooner than you might think.

In fact, opponents of the California decision are afraid to take this case to the Supreme Court because the way the findings of the California court went, the USSC would probably have no choice but to uphold it, effectively making laws against gay marriage illegal all across the US."

They got older and they realized that their own long-term monogamous relationships deserve the same legal recognition as any short -term heterosexual marriages do .

It defies reason why the state should issue a required marriage license to a guy that's been married six previous times and not issue a marriage license to two gay guys who have been living together and sharing a life for 30 years

Gays want to be able to legally marry so that they can receive the same government benefits as same sex couples. It's not really anything to do with being conservative or participating in a traditional institution. Which is what Civil Unions are acceptable: the benefits without the religious.

Traditional marriage is the idea that women are property and that a father has to sell off his daughter with a dowry.

They want to be included, nothing wrong with that and I think they should. That being said gay people (in general) portraying everyone who disagrees with them on the issue as hateful bigots does them no favors and honestly sets them back.

Some believe in marriage and some don't.

You know, just like the rest of us.

Most would simply like the option.

Equal rights. =]

the tea party should focus on their own marriages

When have they been anti-marriage?