Civil Unions are “Separate and Unequal”
Some states or municipalities offer civil unions or domestic partnerships to gay and lesbian couples in an attempt to provide some level of support to or acknowledgment of a couple’s commitment. However, civil unions are clearly unequal to marriage. They are not recognized beyond the state borders, and afford no federal protections. They also fail to provide the intangible benefits of marriage, and are popularly perceived as less than full marriage.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
A civil union can be defined just as marriage can be defined.
A dog is not a cat. A man is not a woman. A man wedded to two wives is not the same thing as a man wedded to thirteen wives.
We went down a long road as a society demanding there is no difference between men and women. There is not a little 'expansion slot' in the brain into which a card is inserted that is labeled "male" or "female." But on the other hand, it did not add to the richness of the human experience by failing to note that a man and a woman are different.
There is no harm in notating that a man wedding a woman is different than a man wedding a man; and that is different from singleness.
Justice does not demand that a single person be defined married for the sake of having access to the same legal and social benefits. Or that a single person in some form of ongoing sexual relationship be defined as a marriage.
We could have a long and valued debate as to whether "marriage" should receive the social/legal benefits it does (or if it should receive more). But to me, it is silly to deconstruct the meaning of the word for the sake of correcting what we deem to be an inequality.
We can go down this road, but it is the equivalent of saying there are only persons instead of being men and women. It answers a question and opens up a larger question. This is not the only route to the needed outcome.
Imagine a contract giving benefits to married couples.
Now imagine a "civilly unionized" couple trying to obtain the same benefits.
Get my drift?
Marraige is the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. If it is not between two DIFFERENT sexes, then it is not Marraige. Civilly Unionized is the word they must use... unless they decide to take the initive to create a new word.
Either way, Marraige is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Before Loving v. Virginia, marriage was the union between a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE.
Now, don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm equating same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. I'm just saying that the definition of marriage can and has evolved in the past.
I understand what you are saying however, if marriage keeps 'evolving' soon it could be considered marriage between a chair and a desk. That is a little to the extreme but where do we draw the line between marriage and just unionized?
Marriage is not going to mean much to those who take it as what it began as. It wouldn't be as special.
"It wouldn't be as special." Why should he have the same color ball as I do? I had one first. Why should he get "x", I didn't get one? The other kids aren't going to think i'm cool if everybody has the same thing I have.
Ok, that was midly snippy. I have seen this "special" argument before and I am rather saddened by it. My 'x' thing (like marriage) is special to me because it is special to me. It's not more special because you say it is. It's not less special because you say it isn't. It is the greatest character flaw in man that we are not always capable of appreciating what we have without the consent, or indeed the jealousy, of those around us. It is from this that greed stems. To say that marriage would not be as special because a different group of people now have access to it is both petty and selfish.
Civil Unions as I understand them would put Gay couples in an equal standing with married Heterosexual couples as long as they were recognized by the IRS. Other than Taxes the Federal Government could care less if you are married or not. Marriage /Civil Unions are state/local govt matters. In reality all Civil "Marriages" are in reality Civil Unions, simply a legal contract. It should be a simple matter to include Homosexuals, brothers and sisters or any cohabiting couple who want the legal protections and responsibilities afforded by such a union. I am totally in favor of that. Marriage is simply a word, nothing more. If the religious people don't like it just let them call Church weddings marriages. The Catholic Church does not recognize Civil Ceremony's between heterosexual couples as a "Marriage". Are you aware of that?
If only civil unions would afford the same benefits as marriages, I might stand to agree with you.
However, many people can think of over 1,000 reasons why they're unequal.
"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."
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf
Why couldn't a Civil union have the same benefits? Just don't call it marriage and it will keep the anti Gay Marriage crowd happy. Regardless, you have to take what you can get one step at a time. If you do that you will get less resistance from the anti Gay Marriage crowd. I think the Gay Rights movement's all or nothing militant attitude does more harm than good and will make the reality of a true equitable Civil Union take longer and more difficult to achieve. Stealth achieves more than Brute Force. As a non Gay among other non Gays I can probably see that better than a Gay person can. I'm on your side. I just think you are using the wrong tactics.
There's no dispute that a civil union could have the same benefits. The question, however, lies in the wording.
"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." (from the same source cited earlier)
Is it such a long stretch to see "civil union" become a derogatory term?
Starting out with "civil union" may bring the illusion of satisfaction. In this hypothetical situation, once lawmakers confer the same provisions that come with marriages, they could argue that civil unions are "good enough", failing to fully realize how a mere word can invite discrimination.
Same-sex marriages were already allowed in parts of the world before the 21st century*. Why do we have to fight for the exact same rights again?
*See: Virginia Law Review vol. 79 no. 7, 1993, A History of Same-Sex Marriage by William N. Eskridge, Jr.
Refer to all Civil Unions as such and let Churches use the term marriage. The only discrimination would come from churches and that's going to happen no matter what you call it. I simply don't agree with your objections.
...I would have agreed with you. Forgive me for not having read your entire argument, then.