Over the last few weeks, I’ve gotten hundreds upon hundreds of emails on gay marriage, civil unions etc. (and I’m not excited about getting any more of them). I’ve read pieces by Stan Kurtz, Derbyshire and everybody else. Personally, I’m increasingly sympathetic to a constitutional amendment, though I haven’t made up my mind about the FMA. All of that said, I just read <a href=”http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_07_13_dish_archive.html#105820795833513524

” target=”_blank”> this post over at Andrew Sullivan which strongly suggests the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America are — or were — opposed to any of the constituent benefits of civil unions.

Now, I understand the arguments against civil unions and gay marriage. But frankly, I’m appalled at the idea that the state can tell me that I can’t have whoever I want visit me on my deathbed. Forget about homosexuality, if I had no family but my best friend was still alive, I would be furious at the idea that the state would or could prevent him from visiting me. Going further, I simply don’t understand why the law should forbid me from designating whomever I want to benefit or handle my estate. I think there are any number of these marriage benefits which have less to do with “rewarding” marriage and have more to do with simple convenience on the part of bureaucrats.