<i>First off to take the stance that gay unions are covered under equal rights legislation is ludicrous unless you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality in innate, imutable, and unchangeable; something that cannot be and has not been empirically established despite decades of research.</i>
Well, not only is it a pretty much accepted belief (although that doesn't make it right), you have the majority of homosexuals who will tell you that what they are is natural and immutable, as you described it.
<i>"Secondly, there is no historical basis for claiming same sex unions are valid."</i>
Why does one need historical basis? It is two people that love eachother and want to make their commitment to one another official, so how is that any less valid in the eyes of the government than two straight people who love eachother?
<i>"Our court system is out of control only because our elected representatives are cowards and refuse to exercise their Consitutional authority over the Supreme Court, which although it is a seperate Consitutional department is not given equal sovereignty under the Constitution with the Congress. "</i>
Well, like I said, the courts have worked within their power in that they have struck down laws on the basis that they are unconstitutional.
<i>"What is your definition of anarchy?"</i>
No different from yours, I'm sure, but still it carries a connetation that is not appropriate for this situation.