Civil unions are a red herring

I've read many times here on DU that marriage equality is not that important because gay people "can always have civil unions."

This is a list of reasons why that isn't true. It may open some eyes (including those of Elton John, who isn't even an American citizen and doesn't know what he's talking about regarding U.S. laws):

http://marriageequalitynow.com/goal/

Civil Unions are not recognized

To date, civil unions only exist in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. California, Washington, Oregon and the District of Columbia offer domestic partnerships which are similar to civil unions. That means in 86% of the United States, gay couples have no rights at all.

Furthermore, creating a new legal structure invites confusion and discrimination. Couples cannot be assured that rights they enjoyed in one state will not be taken away when they move from state to state.

Civil Unions do not provide the full suite of benefits to same-sex couples

Here is a list of benefits that are afforded to heterosexual marriages that are denied to same-sex couples:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Whether or not a civil union provides such benefits varies state-by-state. Lambda legal has identified more than 1400 benefits afforded to heterosexual couples today.

Civil Unions are based on an immoral premise

Civil unions are a legal fiction invented to keep gays separate but equal. Similar social structures were created along ethnic lines before they were declared illegal.

Enemies of marriage equality argue that civil unions prevent marriage from being ‘redefined’, yet they themselves ignore the fact that marriage has been profoundly redefined. America redefined marriage to grant slaves the right to marry. It added womens’ property rights to marriage. Almost 50 years ago, America legalized interracial marriage.

Civil Unions violate the spirit of our constitution

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with us.

Courts define what is constitutionally permissible, and the Massachusetts Constitution does not permit this type of labeling. That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists is not a reason to insist on less than the Constitution requires

The Supreme Court of Connecticut Agrees with us.

We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm

And the Supreme Court of California agrees with us.

there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference

To date, no Supreme Court has found such laws legal. The so-called legal “victories” that supporters of constitutional discrimination advertise were won by stoking feelings of fear and bigotry in voters. Fortunately for America, it falls to the judiciary, not the masses, to protect the interests of the minority and ensure consistency with our founding principles.

are afforded to people in civil unions.

Some of those are federal benefits -- which won't be affected regardless of what its called (civil union or marriage) since the feds don't recognize any same sex union.

Whether or not a civil union provides such benefits varies state-by-state.

In any case, 86% of the population doesn't have access to civil unions, and the trend is to ensure that 100% does not.

But keep in mind that many of the European countries are much more liberal leaning than the US (too much puritan influence in the founding of our country, probably), and many of them are coming up with half-way measures as well.

That doesn't excuse it and isn't meant too, but it does mean we likely are going ease our way into it a little at a time. Getting rid of DOMA and federal recognition of marriages performed in the states (or even Canada) would go a big way toward getting to the ultimate destination.

I just can't see a path from where we are now to full marriage equality without some half way steps being made along the way. It sucks, and I hope I am wrong, but civil rights in this country always seems to be a long process.

Only The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Nepal allow same sex marriage, the majority of Europe recognizes civil union.

Are we supposed to take comfort in the fact that there are only a few countries morally ahead of us? Is that really your point?

When I was growing up, I was taught the usual jingoistic pablum about how America was the greatest country on Earth; how we were the world's leader in every category: science, literacy, wealth, freedom, you name it. If that was ever true, it certainly is no longer the case, at least in those areas that concern human development, moral and otherwise.

You should be ashamed that America was not the first country to legalize same sex marriage, not hiding behind the fact that only a few other - far more advanced - countries do so.

It has always been a matter of a step forward here and a step forward there with a lot of recrimination over our foolishness when we look back on it.

As a group, Americans may have a certain standard of living the world appreciated, but we've always been a bit slow on the uptake with regards to civil rights.

I'm hard pressed to think of a movement toward equality in our country that didn't involve a lot kicking and screaming and baby steps along the way.

Women got the right to vote, but they still don't have full equality in this country. African-Americans have made great strides, but even with the election of our first non-white President, there is still a long way to go.

Let's be honest with ourselves, while we eventually seem to make the right choices, it seems like an uphill battle the entire way, despite the propaganda of how evolved we are as a country. The reality doesn't match the press release.

It's a sad fact.

and letting states decide what word is used to describe those rights, would be a huge step forward. But since that's not acceptable, wait another 20 years.

And that is not acceptable.

Then they will have to figure out a way to do it, no matter what their state constitution says. Oregon had to pass domestic partnerships because of our state constitution, but we did it.

Marriage prohibited by statute or any assembly decision:
Delaware - Illinois - Indiana - Minnesota - North Carolina - Pennsylvania - Puerto Rico - West Virginia - Wyoming - Maine - Maryland - New Hampshire - Vermont - Washington

Marriage prohibition permitted by constitutional amendment: Hawaii (but domestic partnerships permitted)

Marriage prohibited by constitutional amendment: Alaska - Arizona (Const. amendment first rejected) - Colorado - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nevada - Tennessee

Marriage and civil union prohibited by constitutional amendment: Alabama - Arkansas - Florida - Georgia - Idaho - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Michigan - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - South Carolina - Texas - Utah - Wisconsin

Any possible status prohibited by constitutional amendment: Nebraska - South Dakota - Virginia

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Same-sex_legal_relationships_in_USA

......it becomes much more difficult for the states to not recognize them. At the very least it puts them in a very awkward position if the state tries to override something guaranteed by federal law.

Can't really think of anything at the moment as an example.

Also it gives an interesting bully pulpit. For example, when the feds wanted states to change their drinking age laws and speed limits, they were able to say, "No soup for you" if you don't comply. Or sorry, but we can't fund that particular program because of your state's rules concerning the recognition of gay couples who entered into a union outside of your state.

Not saying we shouldn't try, but a lot of these amendments were the result of popular vote. DOMA was a legislative act.

Marriage and civil union are prohibited by Constitutional Amendment in Oregon - but oh my god, gays have partnership rights and labor rights in this state.

If you don't see how that's a step forward, you're not looking.

i'm going to guess---no.
marriage equality, period, end of story.

The rights will be recognized in all 50 states. But like I say, if gays don't want the protection, wait 20 years, or 50, or never.

marriage. Oh hi gay people, here's your civil union cert, oh sure you pay your taxes and are good americans but you still aren't quite there, like 8/10ths of a person.

that's why. But like I say, if it's marriage or nothing, you're welcome to wait.

to be regarded as equal to straight people. It doesn't work that way, it's full equality. PERIOD.

Those then have to be repealed. Let's get the right laws for full equality.

We give them scraps, and suddenly they want a seat at the table!

They should be happy to get what we choose to give them! We don't have to give them anything at all! What ungrateful whiners!

were an actual person!

Those rights are being denied, i'm not sure what people don't understand that, people are being denied civil rights in the freest country in the world.

It has to do with practicality. But if you don't want any protection at all, that's certainly your choice.

It certainly is our choice what we fight for.

....that affords me a lot of the state rights I am entitled to in the meantime?

Marriage equality must be the ultimate goal, but I'm not sure how giving up next of kin rights, putting my spouse on my insurance, etc. because I haven't gotten the entirety of rights afforded to me by marriage is going to help if one of us gets hits by a bus tomorrow.

The fact is that the vast majority of the rights we lack now are granted by the *federal* government, not the states. If the federal government under Obama equalizes all civil and economic rights, then we will have what we most need--which is economic equality. The states will be forced to follow--if it takes 50 lawsuits, then so be it. I want my rights NOW and I don't give a crap what they're called.

People on this thread might want to read this OP to see what Obama's true positions on these issues are. This was an eye-opener for me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7995450&mesg_id=7995450

in all 50 states- alas. I agree that marriage equality is the only equitable way to go, but it's simply false to state that a marriage certificate for a same sex couple in MA is recognized in OK. It's no more recognized than a NJ civil union.

Marriage is such a loaded word, often with religious connotations. We need to take the religious connotation out of the uniting of two people under the law of the state. We can only do that by changing the language.

When ANY couple wants to unite under the LAW, they should get a civil union, with all the benefits and rights afforded under the law to married couples today.

AFTER they've united civilly, they may or may not have a religious(but utterly meaningless in the eyes of the law) marriage from any church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc that will have them.

Just a proposal. I don't like the fact that church and state are so intertwined when it comes to marriage. I think this is the only reasonable way to change that equitably.

which is good in all 50 states and all over the world.

No one talked about civil unions for all?

I'm deeply, deeply sorry that America gets the willies about two men doing "it", but I want my fucking rights. Whatever America might think of the word marriage, it is the word used to denote the legal bond between two people. If the religious nutjobs are so fucking disgusted by sharing the word with a bunch of homos, then LET THEM CHANGE THEIR OWN FUCKING WORD.

I have as much right to the word marriage as any god-worshiping asshole, and a much better argument for keeping it.

I agree 100%

or do you just want to rant about it?

If changing the word for EVERYONE to "civil unions" means gays have the same rights under the law as everyone else, would you go along with it? Or would you cry about it because you don't like the word?

Who cares WTF we call it, as long as we all have the same rights under the law, right?

I couldn't hear myself over the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES SCREAMING ABOUT GAYS GETTING MARRIED.

It is a capitulation to bigotry to even discuss changing marriage to civil unions. It is an insult that would not stand, even if it were possible. Sick of hearing gays whine about not wanting civil unions? Brace yourself for the torrent of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending if someone tries to make Joe Sixpack and Sally Boxwine call THEIR marriage a civil union.

The standard in this country will NEVER BE CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL. It is a nonsensical argument put forth mostly by people who are themselves uncomfortable with the idea of two men fucking.

I'm getting more than a little fucking tired of being painted as unreasonable and petulant because I WANT THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE. Do you believe gays are equal to straights or not? If so, you support gay marriage. If not, I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

you had a difference of opinion and some consider anyone who doesn't agree with them as ranting.

I apologize for painting you as petulant. i do get a bit frustrated with this issue and i ecounter some pretty stubborn folks on both sides. i think middle ground exists. I want assurance that a gay couple's commitment to each other is legally equivalent to what we know today as "marriage" no matter what it is called. religious people want to know that their church isn't going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people. In my opinion, that is the crux of the conflict.

Look, we both want the same thing, right? i was asking a hypothetical question and posing a possible workable solution. You may not think it will work, and that's fine, I wasn't hoping everyone would agree with me.

I think this goes beyond being a civil rights issue, this is a First Amendment issue. They way people get married today mixes religion and state, I think it's wrong and makes a mockery of the Constitution. i think chenging this would go a long way to helping acheive equality for all and is more do-able.

Let the religious gay and straight people have their civil unions and now(under this hypothetical scenario) legally meaningless religious ceremonies, and let all the atheist and agnostic gay and straight people have their civil unions and whatever kind of legally meaningless private ceremony we want.

A couple can get married by a Justice of the Peace with absolutely no religious ceremony whatsoever. And no religious ceremony in this country grants a couple marriage rights. A couple is not married until a certificate of marriage is filed with the government. That is the ONLY way marriage is legally recognized.

There is NO valid reason for changing the way marriage is run in this country other than to appease bigoted assholes. That is not a reason I am willing to approve.

It is pointless to discuss granting civil unions for all. It will never happen, because the word "marriage" is too important to a majority of people. It will be far easier to give gay people the right to marry than it would be to get straight people to accept that their marriages are now civil unions.

It is not only pointless to discuss it, it is insulting. THERE IS NO VALID REASON FOR CHANGING THE WAY MARRIAGE IS PERFORMED IN THIS COUNTRY. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that gay people are unworthy of marriage. You can pretend all you like, but THAT IS THE REALITY.

Until then, it's marriage that is the legal term.

That's what we fight for.