I’m against civil unions and I have Joe Lieberman to thank for it. On July 15, the Human Rights campaign (HRC) hosted a presidential forum that showcased most of the Democratic presidential candidates and their positions on GLBT issues. On the issue of gay marriage, three candidates supported it, while the rest expressed varying degrees of support for civil unions.

Up to this point I believed in civil unions; they were the answer, the perfect compromise. When Canada joined Belgium and the Netherlands as one of the select countries which allow same-sex marriage, I was ecstatic and pined for such a thing to happen here in the U.S. But, since getting there would prove difficult and I have no great need for a religious stamp of approval on my committed relationship, I was willing to settle for less. You can keep your marriage, I thought, just give me the rights and I’ll be satisfied.

What could Mr. Lieberman have done to knock me from my comfortable political stance and set me on my current pro-marriage path? In these anemic days of the Democratic Party, it’s rare for a politician to actually do anything that will significantly affect me. It was, however, something he said at the HRC forum: “Marriage has a special status in our culture, our society, our history.”

Upon hearing that, the issue suddenly crystallized, and I realized the inherent flaw behind civil unions. Marriage is special — too special, in fact, to validate same-sex relationships. The irony here is that, as a group accused of pursuing “special” rights, we now have a basic right enjoyed by the majority being elevated to the status of a special right — one simply too special for us.

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, one of the Republican Party’s thugs-du-jour, made it clear how he and his constituency view gay relationships when he stated this past April, prior to the historic Lawrence v. Texas case, that, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

This is the toughest part of working for recognition of same-sex relationships — the need to change general social views. If we acquiesce, however, and accept the socially innocuous “civil union,” won’t we be inadvertently agreeing with the right’s view that we are different, and that our relationships are less valuable than those between men and women? Yes, and we’d have a fancy official government document formalizing our second-class status.

It’s almost as if we are being herded down the path toward civil unions to produce a fat, slow-moving piece of specialized legislation that future snipers from the right can take aim at and, at last, accomplish their goal — a final and resolute death for the gay marriage debate.

This is a change that has to go beyond the ink-on-paper granting of rights. We’re fighting for social equality and a shift in the predominant mindset; we’re fighting for acceptance. Civil unions would undermine the opportunity to broaden the viewpoints of the country. The sanctity of our commitments, our relationships and our families will have no opportunity to be known, not by our culture, not by our society, and not in our history books.

We’re teetering on a precarious ledge. The highest court in Massachusetts is right now deciding whether or not marriage can be denied to same-sex couples. Not civil unions — traditional, full marriage. It’s this case that will likely tip the issue to the side favoring marriage or down the slippery slope toward civil unions.

I’m not content to be second-class. I refuse to accept a derivative recognition of my love and commitment to another man. My relationship is not a “version” of the real thing.

Unless our commitments have the full weight and significance of the time-honored institution of marriage behind them, their value will always be fallow in our society.

Joe Lieberman and the host of Democratic presidential candidates that are supposed to be working for my welfare apparently lack the political gumption to take the tough but just road. Still, I won’t settle for anything less than full marriage when the time comes to cast my vote. Clayton Kroh is senior editor for Sony Online Entertainment