http://www.atheistalliance.org/news-a-articles/aai-news/318-glbt-rights-endorsed-by-un-hrc

It's hard t believe that it has taken the UN this long to pass a resolution decrying descrimination of gays, but at least it s a step in the right direction.

It's a step in the right direction, but probably has little concrete meaning. More important, New York State just passed same-sex marriage last night! Finally! I mean, if Iowa is more forward-thinking than ultraliberal New York that is a sad state of affairs.

New York is by no means ultraliberal.  The state legislature is dominated by musty conservatism on both sides of the party aisle, and once you get this far north, forget it.  

I must say, I would rather see equal rights take another tack and strike down marriage as a legal institution rather than merely expanding the definition.  I don't care who takes what vows in front of whom, but I don't see why the government needs to be involved in what is basically a religious ritual.  Even where it's a civil ceremony, marriage is merely a parody of an ancient sacrament for legal purposes.

I must say, I would rather see equal rights take another tack and strike down marriage as a legal institution rather than merely expanding the definition.  I don't care who takes what vows in front of whom, but I don't see why the government needs to be involved in what is basically a religious ritual.  Even where it's a civil ceremony, marriage is merely a parody of an ancient sacrament for legal purposes.

A kindred spirit, I see.  I have the same view.

Go New York!!!!! I agree that marriage is an arbitrary institution from a legal standpoint ... however, there are some cases where legal married status is, at least for the moment, absolutely required. For example, my company just got bought out by a huge corporate giant, and now gay and lesbian employees are not allowed to add their partners as dependents on their health insurance, because our insurance is based out of Georgia ... and in Georgia, the person has to be a "legal spouse" or family member to receive benefits.  It would be nice to do away with that completely, so that people can add whoever they want on their insurance ... but I have a feeling that kind of progressive action is a long way off. In the iterim, the best thing they can do is legalize gay marriage.

"Ultraliberal" was mostly tongue in cheek, Matt. You are absolutely right, we are for the most part a rather reactionary state, despite the mythology that prevails elsewhere in the country about us.

I don't quite agree with you about marriage in general. I think there is a place for a ceremony in which a the members of a couple publicly make a commitment to each other. But the legal aspects of that commitment should be completely separate from religion. IOW, civil unions for everyone; if you want a religious ceremony then you have it in your church or temple or mosque or whatever and they can set whatever conditions they please, within reason of course, for that religious ceremony only. Unfortunately, I think even that is a long way off. In the meantime let's at least expand the definition to include people who obviously should not be excluded.