Mainly because the conservative Catholic part of the CDU was a devoted follower of the 'Kinder, Küche, Kirche' framework - 'a German slogan translated “children, kitchen, church”. In present-day Germany, it has a derogative connotation describing an antiquated female role model. The phrase is vaguely equivalent to the English Barefoot and pregnant.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche (not a very good link)

And it is not exactly a coincidence that Merkel is East German - most West German women found more hospitable political homes in other parties, in part because most West German women who wanted to live in ways not encompassed by traditional role models pretty much realized that the CDU was their opponent, at least in the past.

Things change, of course. Now, the Christian Democratic mayor of Hamburg (who while gay, is not in a civil union like the SPD mayor of Hamburg or the head of the FDP) is allied with the Greens to retain power. A generation ago, the CDU was also the most reliably anti-gay party.

As pointed out by Radlafari, the 5 mark tax died, but increased taxation of energy did not.

The Greens are to a major extent being proved correct in their forecasts - I would not say that raising energy taxes is political suicide in Germany, at least as long as it is coupled with positive benefits - the growing number of PV system installations and home insulation standards being concrete examples.

The original Green tax proposal was clumsy, and then whipped into a firestorm by the Bild. What is forgotten is how Kohl raised the gasoline tax several times, without the same accompanying outrage.

That wasn't really my point. I was talking about how to achieve political change in this country, not the benefits of marriage, for anyone. But hey, the ideal family structure could be sort of considered on topic, I guess.

It's sort of like saying that the word, "red" means the same as the word "green".

Even if you're right...words change meaning all the time. Even words for colors. English is a living language, and all that.

The way I look at it, for what it's worth, is that society long ago decided to promote the union between a man and a woman as the best way to reproduce and educate the young, because that's what works.

That is simply not correct. Other societies have allowed gay marriage, and polygyny, and even polyandry. Marriage is basically an economic contract. When the economy changes, so does the nature of marriage.

What the "gay rights" advocates want is to have their sexual orientation legalized and to be able to enjoy the same subsidies which accrue to those who are married. Well, I think that's a bad idea for society. Witness the frequent failure of children from single parent households.

I don't see how that follows. If it's bad for children to come from single parent households (and I think that's questionable), then you should encourage marriage of all kinds. A child living with two parents of the same gender is not a child from a single parent household. Many states already allow gay couples to adopt and foster children, and of course, just because you are gay doesn't mean you can't have biological children.

FWIW...I think the "natural" family structure for children is the extended family. Not the nuclear family, which is an odd fluke and basically the product of the industrial age. Yes, having two parents is better than having one. But having three or four is better than having two. It's the ratio of parents to children that matters most.

...and to be able to enjoy the same subsidies which accrue to those who are married. Well, I think that's a bad idea for society. Witness the frequent failure of children from single parent households.

As a single parent, I can tell you that a lot of the "frequent failure" of children from single parent households has to do with the discrimination we face on many levels - the subsidizing of married households and penalizing of ours in the tax laws being a major force.

My two-person household with a birth certificate between us pays more in taxes than a two-person household at the same income level but with a marriage certificate between them. No freakin' wonder it has been such a struggle.

And now that my child is a young adult, I can no longer insure him. However, if he was my domestic partner or the child of my domestic partner - no problem.

Too bad single parents are so busy doing the work of two parents (but without the subsidies) that they have no time for grass-roots lobbying for their benefit.

Oh come on Black Dog, that wasn't her point.

If you're color-blind, "red" does mean very nearly the same thing as "green".

If "marriage" means a chosen union between unrelated people, then there's nothing wrong with people of the same sex getting married.

But in all practicality, "marriage" doesn't even mean that. Like Doug Stanhope suggests, it's more like signing a contract guaranteeing that you'll be lucky forever, and if you're not, the other party has the right to half your stuff.

If you need a legal document (or a diamond) to prove you love someone, your relationship is a sham from the get-go.

If penalty of law is needed to prevent lovers from fighting or separating, there is something deficient in the system as a whole.

If you think all couples can only be exclusively bonded for life, you're insane.

Gay marriage should be forbidden, and so should straight marriage. Marriage should not be state-sanctioned.

"but that's the way the word has been defined for centuries"

Actually, any fair history of marriage in the West would acknowledge that the word has been repeatedly redefined in legal terms in response to changes in social behavior - one thinks of the "married womens' property acts" in the 19th century that redefined the legal definition of marriage so that women could own property despite their status as married females or Loving v. Virginia that redefined the legal definition of marriage to recognize inter-racial unions. You want to privilege a definition of marriage you like (relying on gender identity of the partners) based on some questionable assertions and assumptions but haven't really offered why your definition of marriage should be immutable when most other definitions have been susceptible to change.

Why the "failure of children from single parent households" should be evidence in an argument against gay couples forming families with children is beyond me.

As one the gay rights advocates you refer to I'd say all I'm looking for is the same range of legal rights, privileges and economic benefits my straight siblings enjoy. Marriage has ceased to be a matter of legal status and is now simply a matter of contract - an associational arrangement based on volition. Allowing some members of society access to the benefits of such an arrangement, but not others is simply irrational and unjust. To be fair - your suggestion that marriage be redefined as a purely private arrangement not subject to state scrutiny would be rational and just by my standards.