One of the authors here is a friend of ptcruiser, so I read and link, but I must comment as well.

Same-Sex Marriage:
Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy
The indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry.
by Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson
06/01/2006 12:00:00 AM

THE MOVEMENT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE to include same-sex unions has packaged its demands in the rhetoric and images of the civil rights movement. This strategy, though cynical, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellows campaigners for racial justice facing down dogs and fire hoses? Who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing same-sex marriage?

As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes.

But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born.

ptcruiser's position here is the close to mine: As a progressive with libertarian leanings I absolutely support everyone's right to live as they see fit. And I support legal recognition of partnerships without distinction...gay couples shouldn't have to specifically enter contracts to secure the 1000+ rights straight couples get with a simple gesture. But I don't like everyone leveraging Black folks' work because we don't get equal support in return.

So let me suggest gay activists set about defanging this issue. Let's look at what failed today.

2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

As this particular round of bullshit progressed I noticed how many different ways people were using the word "marriage." To me, marriage is a public ritual that announces and recognizes a pair bonding. To me, the pair bonding is what matters. But I'm weird. Most folk have some weird melange of religion, morality, sex, desire and money in mind when talking about marriage.

What is marriage? You'll never sort it out.

So forget the word marriage and focus on the "legal incidents" of marriage. Give up on filing your taxes at married rate. All the other incidents are just the reasonable result of two people having joint ownership and power of attorney. You want that all in a package and assigned as the incidents of civil union. You get to say the government isn't supporting gay marriage and everything.