Same-sex marriage/civil unions...I don't understand something.

[Buddyblazon]

First off...I don't like be the guy that says, "Well my best friend is a *________". But in this case...I kind of feel like its necessary so that posters understand my relationships with gays and lesbians.

I have a handful of "best" friends...not just one.

One I grew up with, came out when we were 21. We've been friends since we were 14 (we are both 35 now). I pretty much knew he was gay before he did. We still talk once I week and we were roommates at one point.

Another best friend (we've been friends since the age of 12) was raised by "his two Dad's"...one his biological Father, and the other his Fathers partner since Vietnam (they have a picture on their mantel of the two of them arm and arm in Vietnam where they were both Infantry).

As a product of divorced parents and a latch key kid, my Mother had me go to our friends Chuck and Doug's house after school. They were together for years and my Mother still communicates with Douglas.

What I'm saying here...I am 100% glbt friendly and know full well the bigotry they have faced around the globe for ages.


Now, after reading some posts from a gay/lesbian DU member, I have a question. I am seriously curious and I want to know why.


The question:

Why are civil unions not good enough? If you do not read the following, it will be apparent in your reply. So please read on.



Now, I understand that the movement is for "Same-sex Marriage". And I agree. It absolutely should be.

But I just read from this poster that Civil Unions aren't good enough and they are not happy with only Civil Unions and this person is upset that a candidate is only pushing for Civil Unions?


I don't understand this and here is why:

Changes to society tend to come by way of social evolution. That is, rarely do we go from one spot...to the spot we want to be in a year...5 years. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 50. I think we can all agree on that.

For many Americans (unfortunately), same-sex marriage is completely unacceptable. My right-wing Father is a prime example. He is, however, okay with civil unions. I find this ironic...because legally...it would be so close to same-sex marriage...the biggest difference would be the name by which you call it. I understand there are nuances and slight differences. But it is far and away a big improvement on the status quo.

AND IT IS A COMPROMISE.

I have met many on the right that look at it at the same way as my Father. "No" to same-sex marriage, "sure" to civil unions.

What I am having a hard time understanding that people would be "all or nothing". They don't want civil unions, the want marriage. And I believe that should be the goal. But they wouldn't take civil unions if it meant we were headed in the right direction just because it's not same sex marriage? Are you kidding me?

Rome wasn't built in a day. Almost everybody here wants same-sex marriage to be a reality. But if it can't be a reality in a year, why wouldn't people compromise for civil unions and be patient as we continue to move toward same-sex?

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh. I want equal rights for any and all of our glbt friends. But I also understand that at this point, civil unions, which are a compromise that moves greatly in the direction we want to be headed will have a much easier chance to move forward.......

because for some reason....right-wingers can accept that. And with them on board as well, moving forward with civil unions can be much smoother and more immediate. Literally within the next couple of years.

And with a generation of people growing accustomed to the idea of civil unions as a normal part of everyday life...at some point...the idea of using the actual word "marriage" will be a stones throw away.


I hope I have offended no one. I feel for your pain. Particularly in watching my friend grow up with his two Dads. The stress those two had to endure over what would happen to my friend if his biological Father passed was difficult to watch...and amazingly I understood it by a relatively young age (15-16). Now that we are grown men, when I sit at their house, I look at the two of them (together more than twice as long as my parents were) it's amazing to me that these two stayed so strong with such a stress hanging over them and they didn't let it affect their relationship.


Hopefully someone can answer all this for me. And I hope I don't get flamed too hard for this line of questioning.

[meegbear]

1. ...

[Buddyblazon]

4. I hope you're not inferring that I am in some sort of way a bigot...

I can assure you, I am as far away from a bigot as one could possibly be.

I was hoping I was safe to ask this question here. Because here, we tend to ask and discuss tough questions.

[meegbear]

No ....

I mean "separate but equal"; wasn't good then and isn't good now.

Fortunately, I live in the only state that allows full marriage rights. One down, 49 to go.

[JackBeck]

10. We're right behind you.

If Corzine lives up to his 2009 promise.

[DU9598]

24. We are right behind you too

The Polk County District Court legalized gay marriage. This summer we should have a decision from the Iowa Supreme Court. Our state's constitution is very clear in equality. Marriage equality is on its way in Iowa.

[JackBeck]

26. That's right!

You guys will probably reach a decision before Jersey.

Go Iowa!

[TlalocW]

37. Implying, not inferring.

Sorry, what with all the possibility for accusations of racism, homophobia, etc. I decided to be a language nazi. :)

Anyway, you infer someone else's implication. So your correct question would be, "Are you implying I'm a racist?"

TlalocW

[LostinVA]

2. They don't work and separate, but equal, is not equal

NJ has civil unions. My wife and I are lucky, because even though we both work in conservative environments, they respect our civil union. Lots of other companies don't, because it's not called marriage. Fortunately, our governor is changing it to marriage, after the election.

[MissB]

3. Marriage automatically conveys all sorts of rights and privileges.

Think of taxes (filing jointly). Think of birth of children with in a marriage. Think of Social Security, and how if one spouse dies the other spouse gets Survivor Benefits until remarriage. Think of the right of a spouse to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

Yes, one could get many of these things by visiting a lawyer, but not all. Nope, these are for heterosexual married folks only. Even in those states with civil unions, federal benefits aren't available. Other states don't have to recognize the civil union.

[xchrom]

5. there are hundreds of laws that define the perimeters of marriage

and the same is not accorded to civil unions.

everything from property to children is covered in ways that are unique to marriage.

congress nor anyone else is going to confer all of those laws onto civil unions.

contrary to popular opinion -- marriage is not a religious institution -- it's just that you can get married in a church.
but you can also get married by a judge or a sea captain.

[Tesha]

12. Why not?

> congress nor anyone else is going to confer all of those laws onto civil unions.

Why not? It could be done if we had politicians who were
not scared of their own shadows.

A simple law such as "For all purposes of law and regulation,
civil unions shall be construed as being identical with
civil marriages." would accomplish the deed.

Tesha

[LostinVA]

17. They tried that in NJ -- companies and hospitals are still getting around it

So the governor is changing it to marriage.

[Tesha]

30. If you write your law in an obvious-enough fashion, no one "gets around" it.

I cited some proposed language in the post to
which you just replied.

Tesha

[LostinVA]

32. They DID write the laws that way -- some companies incorporated outside of NJ were skirting the law

That's why it's being changed to marriage. The law states it gives all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. The law states that Haruka and I are spouses, same as opposite-sex couples. Companies are still skirting it.

Hell, we even filled out the exact same form that straight people do for our license.

[Tesha]

35. This goes back to my point about the need for matching Federal legislation as well.

But our Federal legislators are a bunch of
lily-livered cowards.

Tesha

[JackBeck]

6. It would be a lot easier to ascribe

equal status if the joining of two people was called the same thing.

New Jersey has already seen problems with access to equal treatment under the law with civil unions in place.

And then what happens when you travel to a state that doesn't recognize civil unions? Happened in Florida where a lesbian was denied access to her dying partner, even though they had a civil union in another state.

Call it marriage under state and federal law. Problem solved.

[libnnc]

7. Because not all states recognize civil unions

And our legal rights as a couple would be left up to the whim of individual state supreme courts. There's no long term legal security in civil unions.

[Tesha]

34. They won't all recognize gay marriage, either.

Some have written the prohibitions into their
constitutions.

If marriage is what you insist upon, then it
will take long, hard legal action to roll-
back some of the damage that's been done in
the last few years. "Civil unions" skirt
much of that damage.

Tesha

[libnnc]

46. Individual companies are already trying to "skirt" around CUs

Fucked if we do, fucked if we don't.

[xchrom]

58. marriage is not a religious institution -- i don't get you're

repetition on this.

you say if it's something ''we'' insist on{gay folk} then why do they allow atheists to marry?

it's not about religion -- you can get married and many millions do -- outside of a church.

only gay folk cannot get married.

and you want something -- with your simplified language -- that no one is going to give.

[Tesha]

65. Don't be obtuse: "Marriage" is both a religious and a civil institution.

We have the opportunity to affect civil marriage
but certainly don't have the opportunity to affect
religious marriage.

Tesha

[xchrom]

68. marriage under the law IS NOT religious.

try again with your obtuse.

[Tesha]

75. Only *YOU* are conflating religious marriage with civil marriage.

And yes, they're both quite real.

Tesha

[xchrom]

77. show me where the legal clauses are in federal marriage statutes that refer to religion?

where are the statutes regulating interfaith marriage?

why can atheists marry?

or why can peope not use a church at all?

[xchrom]

73. here ya go

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/27_samesex.shtml

At what point in U.S. history did jurisdiction over marriage pass from the church to the government?
Draft text of bill to legalize same-sex marriage across Canada

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Marriage has never been administered by the church in the United States. In England, the ecclesiastical courts — which we never had — controlled marriage and divorce up until 1857, when the civil divorce bill was passed. In the United States we started out having legislative private divorces, but very early on, after the Revolutionary War, the jurisdiction was conferred to the state legislatures and the courts to set the grounds for and make the definitions of divorce.

When we talk about civil marriage and religious marriage in the United States, we're really only talking about the way in which the marriage is celebrated. In a religious marriage, it is celebrated at the church. But regardless of where the ceremony occurs, legally marriage is always defined as a civil contract.

But although the government has always administered that contract, granting marriage licenses as well as divorces — even ones that run contrary to religious beliefs, such as divorce in the Catholic Church — many people in this country still believe that marriage is governed by religion.

That's right. Many religions view marriage as a sacrament. But that doesn't control what the civil law permits. If you want to look at a place where there's a real conflict between religious law and other law, look at Israel. Israel has only religious marriage law; it doesn't have any such thing as civil marriage. So if you get married outside of the religion, there's no way you can have that marriage recognized.

I read a letter to the editor written by an opponent of same-sex marriage, who said "Look, if I have a piece of gold, and the government suddenly decides that sandstone is worth the same as gold, then my gold has become valueless. It's the same with marriage." And I was thinking, "Well, if you have a diamond and we discover another diamond mine, the value of your diamond will decrease, too — but that doesn't mean you don't have the same diamond that you had before."

[TommyO]

83. Nobody is trying to affect any church's position on marriage through legal means

Civil recognition of our marriages is all we're expecting.

[ourbluenation]

8. they're not the same in terms of rights and priviledges, but it's a common mistake people make. n/t

[Tesha]

16. Federal nicities aside, in what way are they different?

Federal law doesn't recognize civil unions, so
please avoid referring to the differences that are
attributable to Federal Law.

But in states that have "civil unions", in what way,
precisely, are they different than civil marriages?

Tesha

[ourbluenation]

45. The OP didn't ask for the difference. To me it's ALL about the federal differences...

Of which I'm sure you are aware.

[Tesha]

67. I agree. And we need brave legislators, something we're sorely lacking. (NT)

[Tesha]

9. I've thought for quite a while that we would do some good by popularizing the term "civil marriage".

After all, that's the point: a full-fledged partnership
(by any name) that provides all the rights and privileges
but has no bearing whatsoever on "Religious Marriages".

Tesha

[xchrom]

60. marriage is already not religious. except that you say so.

[Tesha]

66. As I said above... (NT)

[xchrom]

69. marriage under the law is not religious. nt

[Buddyblazon]

11. Okay...

I see. The many laws that fall under civil union are not nearly as encompassing as "marriage".

But couldn't the definition of civil union be ever changing with more and more being added as we move forward?

Or is that not possible?

[MissB]

13. Separate but equal was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[JackBeck]

15. Equality should not be measured in bits and pieces. n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

14. Because separate but equal is not equal.

Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka.

And, why not marriage? I'm a straight middle aged married mom of three. When asked how long I've been with my spouse, I say "We've been married for almost 19 years". I DO NOT say "We've been civil unioned for almost 19 years".

The term marriage is too much a part of the English vernacular to insist that the GLBT do without it.

[Buddyblazon]

19. Then don't....

just call it marriage. Who the hell is going to call someone on it? :dunno:

[Midlodemocrat]

20. What?

Not following you, dude.

[LostinVA]

23. I'm confused, too

[Buddyblazon]

29. Don't say, "I've been civil unioned for......"

Just say, "We've been married."

Very few people are going to correct someone for saying that. And the more it's said, the more it becomes a part of societies vernacular.

[LostinVA]

21. Yep -- Haruka and I are married, not civil unioned

And, we didn't have a civil ceremony. We had a semi-religious ceremony with a minister.

[leftofcool]

18. Marriage has always been a state institution

That means the state makes the rules. All states recognize each others' marriages but they won't all recognize each others' civil unions and therein lies the problem. I agree with you that it is a process of social evolution but the conservative lawmakers won't even allow the groundwork for the process to begin.

Left of Cool

[JackBeck]

22. It's also Federal.

Joint filing and whatnot.

SS inheritance.

Even family discounts at our National Parks.

Not just a state institution.

[Buddyblazon]

25. I am afraid to say this because someone is going to go off half-cocked on me...

but....

while separate but equal was not acceptable...wasn't it a stepping stone on the way to where we are now?

[JackBeck]

27. The point is that we should have learned from that mistake.

And not put another community through that horrible experience ever again.

[Midlodemocrat]

28. Only after it was deemed unconstitutional.

[MrsMatt]

31. I think so many of the objections to according

marriage status to others outside of a monogamous, heterosexual pairing has to do with the fact that in many many religions, marriage is a sacrament. Pair that with ojections to homosexuality, and you can see why it's a hot button issue.

Personally, I'd like us to go to the European model, where the civil union bestows all the legal rights that are currently the domain of marriage, and THEN, if you want to celebrate your joining in a sacrament, you can have your church wedding. But the civil union would be the only legal ceremony.

[Buddyblazon]

36. Exactly...

it is obvious I didn't understand that the current form of civil unions fall so far short of marriage.

Couldn't it be presented that way however? Couldn't the legalise of civil unions be presented on a national level....

that the only difference was the word the government used?


Would that mean anything different to those in this thread?

Because the feeling I got from my Father was that he was all for civil unions receiving the same things that a married hetero couple did...but his numbskull brain and the "bible" got in the way of the use of the word "marriage". That was it. That was all that bothered him (quite moronic if you ask me...but I know his friends feel the same way).

[MrsMatt]

40. I'm a straight, married woman so

I don't know that I could answer that.

But, based on what I've read here on this thread (and others in the past), I believe that whatever it is called (marriage, civil union, or whatever else you want to call it), as long as it affords the exact same rights for all, I don't see that there would be much objection.

Remove the authority of the legal ceremony from the states, and have a uniform federal license to wed. Separate the religious rite from the legal rite (separation of church and state).

I doubt that the states would go for it however. Unless they got their piece of the license fee action.

[TommyO]

85. Religious and civil marriages are already separate entities

There is no need to change religious marriage, it's civil marriage that needs to live up to the equality we're all guaranteed. Anything less than full marriage is unacceptable.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Well I take issue

with those who expect me to make them some how holy. I do not buy for a moment that most Americans think of marriage as anything but a contract to be ignored and broken at will. If marriage is such a Sacrament why is it treated as an arrangment? Why is divorce legal or why is it not at least a huge social stigma? Why are divorced people not treated by law as breakers of vows and tainters of Sacrament, and if not in law, then why not by all these holy rollers bugged by my life? Christians in this country certainly do not follow Jesus's teachings about divorce, nor adultrey. Nope. It is only a Sacrament when I want equal treatment under the law. Not when they meet someone better and leave the kids with the old one.
The high horse Sacrament talk is not proven by the actions of the religious people, nor by the laws they seek to live under themselves. It is without merit. You say monogomous straight couples, as if they all are. What a crock. And what happens if they are not? Nothing. Maybe a divorce, again defining the Sacrament.
Many of these self same people by the way say abortion is murder and some say the same for contraception. Are the religious feelings of a stack of hypocrites a reason to ban abortion and contraception? Would you even make that sanctimonious argument about choice?
You think about Ozzie and Harriet when you describe marriage. I think of Rudy and Gingrich and Britney and the many Sacraments of my friends parents and siblings, I think Sacramental housholds full of all kinds of rot and degradation. So how's that. It is not much to brag about when you get down to it. You spin it as some sort of mystical thing. Go tell that to Child Protective Services.
If it is a Sacrament, it is a weak and empty one.

[MrsMatt]

57. Broad brush

I'm no longer religious, but I was married in my home church (where my children are baptized, and where my parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents are buried). It was, and still is, the rural community center for the congregation. For those people, the church and its teachings (sacraments included) are very important.

I was brought up in a household by parents who loved and respected each other, as was my husband. So my role model for marriage was a sort of Ozzie & Harriet, albeit we were rural and poor.

Many households are full of rot and degredation - it's not limited to Christian. Nor is is exclusively Christian.

I was just trying give the OP an insight into what I thought might be an objection, not to denigrate your struggle. I'm sorry if my post was unclear, I'm not always good at expressing myself via the written word. And, I'm sorry for offending you.

[xchrom]

63. marriage -- under the law -- is not religious --

lots of agnostics, atheists gt married everyday -- they just don't do it in a church -- but it is still a marriage.

[Hydra]

33. Most RWers have problems with the fact that the people are allowed live in the same house

Marriage should be allowed for anyone regardless of race, gender, creed(or lack of), orientation, social status, etc.

The RWers want to DENY people rights. That's unamerican.

[MuseRider]

38. "AND IT IS A COMPROMISE."

Right there. That is it. Compromise on their inherent rights to be equal citizens of this country. I understand what you are saying and I fight many in my group who believe in the slow path but on this issue I think it is imperative that we as citizens recognize the years of second class citizenry we have foisted on them. It affects everything in their lives and is tragic. To ask them to compromise by accepting a small rise in their social acceptance rather than rising to the status you and I have is insulting and wrong. It continues to foster the idea that they are still not quite as good as "we" are and that is dangerous and wrong. How could anyone accept that? What rights are you willing to live without in order to bring equality and fairness to all? If you are not willing to lose some of yours then how could you expect them to continue to not even have the chance to gain them?

Compromise is fine but not when dealing with the civil rights of our brothers and sisters.

[Buddyblazon]

41. That's the best opposing view point in this thread...

"Compromise is fine but not when dealing with the civil rights of our brothers and sisters."

[MuseRider]

43. Thanks

I am not entirely certain I phrased everything correctly in that post, I was typing rather quickly as this topic is one of my top issues. My skills are not nearly as good as my heart is I am afraid.

[FreepFryer]

44. Seconded. Glad you wrote it first. (n/t)

[LeftHander]

87. ding ding ding. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

39. I think there's a difference between accepting that an incremental

approach may be necessary to ultimately succeed in true equality, and taking a position that CUs are enough.

CUs are not equal. They're not federal, for one thing. They're often limited, for another. They don't extend beyond the boundaries of the particular state. And frankly, we should know by now that separate isn't equal.

I do understand that CUs may be used as a stepping stone, and I can accept that - but only when they are seen as a step, not the goal.

Does that make sense?

[Buddyblazon]

42. Yes...

and that was kind of my point in the OP.

[upnatom65]

47. the marriage right I want most

My partner and I went up to Canada to get married in November.
 He's Japanese and I'm American.  If marriage were legal here
and recognized by the federal government, he could move here
and we could continue our lives together in the same land. 
We're going on 15 years.

As it stands now, we have applied to go to Canada......they
respect us enough to recognize our rights.

For me personally, that's the most important right granted by
marriage.

[LostinVA]

48. NJ recognizes your marriage in Canada

I know that doesn't help on a Federal level though, with immigration.

[catnhatnh]

49. I think you made the whole thing up....

...there's not really a place called "Oconomowoc" is there??? Oh yeah, Welcome to DU!

[upnatom65]

61. lol...thanx

been a lurker here for ages, thought it was time to show my
face.

[JackBeck]

50. Welcome to DU!

Equality in immigration should be right up there with all the other issues.

Unfortunately, this issue has problems gaining traction even within our community. Maybe get in touch with Lambda Legal to see if they can help.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/

[upnatom65]

62. appreciate the advice

I've talked with Feingold's office and was basically told
there wasn't much I could do.  I moved back in '99 and he's
applied for the visa lottery every year since.  We found him a
job in Milwaukee, but they couldn't (wouldn't) sponsor him :( 
We're optimistic about Canada and are now just waiting for the
immigration authorities to get to our application.  Patience
is probably the most important thing I learned in Japan.

[Occulus]

52. I think the answer to your question lies in the "full faith and credit" clause

Text:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Ergo, when one state allows full marriage rights to homosexuals, that state's marriages must be recognized as valid by the other 49 states. DOMA "supercedes" this. That is unconstitutional on its face. No further argument is necessary beyond that clause. We have this now in two states. Where are the other 48 on this issue? Not recognizing them, which is not only wrong, but illegal. Notice, the text says "prescribe the manner", not "prescribe or proscribe the manner".

In other words, Congress gets no say in "whether", only in "how".

Think of it this way: you adopted your child in Alabama; therefore, your adoption is valid only in Alabama. See how utterly ridiculous it is?

Here's another example. You got your driver's license in Michigan. You can't drive legally anywhere else.

Lesson: you can't invalidate contracts or public records you don't like just because you don't like them. Congress, under this clause, cannot veto any such agreement, only set forth the manner in which such agreements are recognized. In other words, Congress has no say, and DOMA is unconstitutional on its face. We already HAVE "equal rights", provided we marry in one of those two states, but the rest of the nation is- again, illegally, unconstitutionally- refusing to recognize those judicial proceedings and public records.

Does it make sense to you now?

edit: this also applies to adoptions/surrogate mothers for gay and lesbian couples as it applies to their status as parents.

Further edit: IANAL, but the Constitution is written clearly enough that you really don't have to be to understand it; it was intentionally written to be understood by all.

[JackBeck]

53. Which makes this whole argument of making all marriages "civil unions".

And then going for a separate, religious ceremony if you want to be "married".

We already have marriage, regardless of its religious implications, sanctioned by both the state and federal government.

It's already there, and recognized as more than just a religious ceremony, ie getting married at City Hall. Or if you're atheist, you still get "married".

Just make the institution open to the LGBT community. Case closed.

[Occulus]

55. Actually, according to the clause,

it doesn't matter what it's called; it must be recognized as valid by all the various states- even those which have an antigay marriage amendment to their state constitutions.

This includes actual marriages as provided for by those states which allow it.

We agree, but I'd very much like to force the whole "marriage" issue down the throats of those against it. They already have no choice but to accept gay marriage.

The clause says what it says, and nothing less. I'm frankly vastly shocked that DOMA hasn't yet been challenged on those grounds.

[JackBeck]

56. Let's wait a few years on that challenge.

Given the current make-up of the SCOTUS.

I really believe one day, history will cast a very scornful eye on what this country has done to its own people.

[Tesha]

70. Ya gotta admit, it would be somewhat-entertaining to see Scalia argue that the FF&C clause...

Ya gotta admit, it would be somewhat-entertaining to
see Antonin Scalia argue that the Full Faith and Credit
Clause doesn't *REALLY* mean what it obviously does mean.

Hell, maybe even *HE* would be embarrassed to stake his
obvious political leanings in an opinion. But Thomas
simply isn't embarrasable by any torturing of logic.

Tesha

[JackBeck]

71. I didn't find his dissenting opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick very entertaining.

Don't think his opinions about this would be any better.

[cboy4]

54. Here ya go buddyblazon. Fair question:

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

However, there's a basic principle:

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

==========================================================

MORE:


Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions -
What's the Difference?

http://www.glad.org/rights/OP7-marriagevcu.shtml



Does this help?

[bicentennial_baby]

59. 1138

Federal rights that people in civil unions cannot have. That's why.

[xchrom]

64. just a reminder for everyone -- marriage under the law is not religious.

only if you make it so.

[Booster]

72. I like Jerry Brown and Arnold S's answer to this problem. Take

the word marriage out completely. People who want to get "married" in a church can, but everyone would have to have a "civil union" through like a justice of the peace (I thnk that's right). I think the key here for gays is that atheists have the same rights as Christians so obviously religion has nothing to do with anything. I suppose they would have to have a law that civil unions can only be between humans so some idiot couldn't try and marry his dog, but IMO this is the easiest way to solve this problem.

[LynnTheDem]

74. Why are civil unions ONLY not good enough for straights?

EQUALITY.

Ya got it, or ya don't.

[Tesha]

76. Actually, some of us believe they *ARE* good enough, your huge type notwithstanding. (NT)

[Occulus]

78. Constitutionally, they're not enough

It must be recognized as marriage by the other 49 states if the marriage is done in a state that recognizes it as such.

This issue really cheeses me. A lot of people haven't read their Constitutions (federal, not state). The US Constitution is clear. Marriage for one state means marriage in all, if the married so desire.

This shouldn't even be an issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. I don't understand why civil rights should be subject to compromise.

A "colored-only" water fountain is still unacceptable, even if it is the newfangled kind almost like the one next to it.

[and-justice-for-all]

80. Civil Union does not equal marriage.

When you tell a class of people that they can have 'Civil Unions' but not 'marriage', it sends the message to that group that "you do not deserve equal recognition because your are not equal in society."

People get married, as well as divorced, everyday. Now, what impact has that made on my life or anyone elses? Zero. So, allowing same-sex couples to marry or divorce, has no more of an impact on me or anyone else any more than John and Jane's marrige or divorce.

I can come to accepting not beinging able to marry my significant other ONLY if they also ban divorce. If marriage is such a grand sacrement, then they should ban divorce. If they can not ban divorce, then there should be no issue with allowing same-sex couples to marry.

[JackBeck]

81. And there we have it.

I appreciate your grasp with this issue.

[and-justice-for-all]

82. No problem...

it pisses me off to no end that people with imaginary friends have such a strangle hold on our Gover't; they are exactly why this is such an issue.

[Echo In Light]

84. Agreed

[LeftHander]

86. The question for you is why is marriage too good for gay people?nt