While the gay rights groups declare victory with the passing of the institutions called "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" it is important to recognize that they are only a gesture and compromise to those that oppose gay marriage. Some focus groups brought together suggested, "Can't you call it something other than 'marriage?"

In Andrew Sullivans wonderfully written essay, he clearly answers that question with a "NO" and here are a few reasons why; Marriage, is among our most basic civil rights.

"Domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" should not be thrown out, but neither can they be accepted. In fact these half measures, completely undermine equality . Withholding the name and form of our relationships and calling them something else is an act of stigmatism and separation.

Andrew Sullivan points out that "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are based on sentiment more than reason and more on prejudice than principal.

There are two aspects. the first is an appeal to the moral, historical and religious aspects. The institution called "marriage" has throughout time had vast changes.

If marriage were the same today as it had been since the beginning of time, it would be possible to marry a twelve year old, own a wife and dispose of her at will, be jailed or incarcerated for marrying a person of a different race, and it would be impossible to get a divorce. One might equally say, that New York senators are men and have always been men. Does that mean a woman should never be a senator from New York? Would women be able to vote? Would there be a black man advising the President?

Marriage being primarily about procreation? Is there some reason that heterosexual couples without children should have the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage but a lesbian couple with biological children should not? Not if procreation was our guide.

Moral? The courts have upheld the rights to marry to a random woman marrying a millionaire on television whom she had never met before, death row prisoners, deadbeat dads to procreate more, people whom have had countless divorces and even the insane. when civil law permits the delinquent, the murderers, imprisoned, the sterile, and the insane to marry, it seems interesting that it draws the line on homosexuals.

The Defense of Marriage Act implies that allowing homosexuals to marry constitute an "attack" on the existing institution. Gore, Bush, Hillary and Bill Clinton all endorse and support DOMA. But how, exactly, does the freedom of a gay couple to marry weaken a straight couples commitment to the same institution? The only answer is that since homosexuals are inherently depraved and immoral, allowing them to marry would inevitably spoil, even defame the institution of marriage. One wonders, what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, both having marital affairs at the time, thought they were achieving by passing the DOMA.

Some argue that they base their opposition on gay marriage not on prejudice but on reality. Gay men, they say, are incapable of commitment, monogamy, and responsibility of heterosexuals. They contend that if gay men were allowed to marry that a new standard of adultery would lower the standards for the population as a whole. Doesn't that set a bar for homosexuals that does not exist for any other group? Are gay men any less likely to live up to the standards of monogamy than a straight man? Or a murderer on death row? An insane man? How about the President of the United States? The truth is there is LITTLE evidence to support the theory that same-sex marriage will be less successful than a straight marriage.

But if "civil unions" give us the same rights.... why the fuss? First, Because such an arrangement again legally divides Americans with regard to our central social institution. It creates a two tiered system with one marriage model clearly superior to the other. and second, because marriage is not merely an accumulation of benefits, but our fundamental right as vested in the "Bill of Rights" and the "Declaration of Independence".

For the full version of Andrew Sullivan's beautifully written, "Marriage or Bust" essay click here .