Marriage vs. Civil Unions

Storm · Mar 13, 2010

For those who say they support civil unions, but not same sex marriage, why? I just don't get it.

My objections, in no particular order:
1) Though it varies by state, civil unions rarely provide all the benefits of marriage.

2) Seperate is never equal. Would YOU be satisfied with second class status?

3) How is the same sex marriage debate any different from the interracial controversy of yesteryear?

I know we have to take baby steps, but it's frustrating. I try to assume ignorance on the part of people who take this position, because the only alternative is that they're deliberately peeing on our boots and calling it rain.

So, a few educational articles:
Difference Between Civil Unions & Marriage
A Primer On Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, & Defense Of Marriage Acts
Marriage Is More Than A Civil Union

Let's try to keep this civil, folks. I know it's a hot button issue, but I really am trying to understand.

Panda · Mar 13, 2010

From a UK perspective we have "Civil Unions" for same sex couples this comes with all the same legal benefits as marriage or long term partners. I think the reason for not calling it marriage was to avoid the whole debate while giving equal rights in the eyes of the law to same sex couples.

Storm · Mar 13, 2010

Panda said:
From a UK perspective we have "Civil Unions" for same sex couples this comes with all the same legal benefits as marriage or long term partners. I think the reason for not calling it marriage was to avoid the whole debate while giving equal rights in the eyes of the law to same sex couples.

Do you support this, or would you prefer no distinction?

ETA: Also, while comparisons to other systems are quite welcome, this thread's focus is on the American issue. Even in the rare instance that a state's civil unions might confer all state benefits, they have no power to grant federal rights. They're never equal, not even legally.

Guitar's Cry · Mar 13, 2010

For those who would say (and this was essentially part of some of the political ads back in the fall here in Maine) "Civil Unions are essentially the same as marriage, so why make a big deal over the title?" I would respond:

"Are you willing to change the title of your marriage to 'Civil Union'? If not, why?"

Panda · Mar 13, 2010

Storm said:
Do you support this, or would you prefer no distinction?

I think it was a good idea to avoid the mess that is happening in America over this. marriage is becoming an out dated concept these days anyway

Draka · Mar 13, 2010

There is no rational argument for denying same sex marriage. Really, the only one you'll hear is all this blah blah blah about marriage being a religious institution and government should stay out of it yadda yadda yadda. When, in fact, marriage isn't a commodity owned by the religious and if it was, then why can atheists get married? If it belongs to a religion, which religion? And why can people of other religions get married? And if they are all about the "sanctity" of marriage, then why aren't they more concerned with fighting divorce since it is a much bigger threat to marriage than anything else?

Truth is, there is no valid argument, no matter how hard they stamp their foot and want to pretend there is.

Storm · Mar 13, 2010

Panda said:
I think it was a good idea to avoid the mess that is happening in America over this. marriage is becoming an out dated concept these days anyway

But do you think it's right?

Panda · Mar 13, 2010

Storm said:
But do you think it's right?

To me it is the legal status that is important, I don't really get the big thing over the word marriage. I can see why some people would object to not being able to get married only a civil partnership though.

Storm · Mar 13, 2010

Panda said:
To me it is the legal status that is important, I don't really get the big thing over the word marriage. I can see why some people would object to not being able to get married only a civil partnership though.

You're right that the legal rights take precedent.

For me, the issue over the word is that they're still saying we're not accepted. Civil unions are scraps from the table, and they expect us to be grateful.

Mr. Hair · Mar 13, 2010

Panda said:
I think the reason for not calling it marriage was to avoid the whole debate while giving equal rights in the eyes of the law to same sex couples.

I think that it's also partly due to our still having a state religion that doesn't (officially, at least) support allowing gay couples to get married.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 13, 2010

Panda said:
To me it is the legal status that is important, I don't really get the big thing over the word marriage.

Two big reasons come to mind:

- civil unions aren't completely equal to marriage. Even if they're treated equally under the law in Britain, some countries will recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. Britons do travel occasionally, even Britons in same-sex relationships.

- even if marriages and civil unions were equal now, the fact that a distinction is made between them creates the possibility that this could be changed. If same-sex couples' rights and opposite-sex couples' rights are both considered marriages, this would make it more difficult for a future anti-gay administration to take away these rights from same-sex couples.

Storm · Mar 13, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Two big reasons come to mind:

- civil unions aren't completely equal to marriage. Even if they're treated equally under the law in Britain, some countries will recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. Britons do travel occasionally, even Britons in same-sex relationships.

- even if marriages and civil unions were equal now, the fact that a distinction is made between them creates the possibility that this could be changed. If same-sex couples' rights and opposite-sex couples' rights are both considered marriages, this would make it more difficult for a future anti-gay administration to take away these rights from same-sex couples.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking tactically when I answered. Thanks for doing it for me. :hug:

Panda · Mar 13, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Two big reasons come to mind:

- civil unions aren't completely equal to marriage. Even if they're treated equally under the law in Britain, some countries will recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. Britons do travel occasionally, even Britons in same-sex relationships.

Would that make a difference if the other country didn't recognise same sex couples anyway? One thing I did learn is foreign civil unions, lets take Vermont as an example, get the same rights as ours. So even though in their home country the civil union is worth less than marriage when the UK recognises it and they get the same legal protection as in our country

9-10ths_Penguin said:
- even if marriages and civil unions were equal now, the fact that a distinction is made between them creates the possibility that this could be changed. If same-sex couples' rights and opposite-sex couples' rights are both considered marriages, this would make it more difficult for a future anti-gay administration to take away these rights from same-sex couples.

That is a good point I never even thought of that.

gnomon · Mar 13, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Two big reasons come to mind:

- civil unions aren't completely equal to marriage. Even if they're treated equally under the law in Britain, some countries will recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. Britons do travel occasionally, even Britons in same-sex relationships.

- even if marriages and civil unions were equal now, the fact that a distinction is made between them creates the possibility that this could be changed. If same-sex couples' rights and opposite-sex couples' rights are both considered marriages, this would make it more difficult for a future anti-gay administration to take away these rights from same-sex couples.

That's the biggest reason not to give credence to the notion that civil unions = marriage on the level of civil rights.

Many people forget that during the elections of 2008 one State specifically used the details of legal language to deny adoptive/foster care rights to individuals which would have included denying those rights to a civil union.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 13, 2010

Panda said:
Would that make a difference if the other country didn't recognise same sex couples anyway? One thing I did learn is foreign civil unions, lets take Vermont as an example, get the same rights as ours. So even though in their home country the civil union is worth less than marriage when the UK recognises it and they get the same legal protection as in our country.

Yes. For instance, IIRC, Israel hasn't legalized same-sex marriage within its own borders, but it does recognize foreign same-sex marriages... but not foreign same-sex civil unions.

And in the countries that have same-sex marriage, I think that the recognition of foreign same-sex unions would vary, simply because the rights and status of civil union vary from country to country. Say you were on vacation in Canada when your partner was incapacitated. When you tell the hospital staff that you're the victim's partner in a British civil union, I don't think it would be certain that they'd necessarily know right away that this means you have the capacity to consent to medical care on your partner's behalf. They'd definitely know what it meant if you told them you were married to the victim, though.

Marriage vs. Civil Unions

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Panda

42?

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan

Panda

42?

Draka

Wonder Woman

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Panda

42?

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Mr. Hair

Renegade Cavalcade

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Panda

42?

gnomon

Well-Known Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist