Reply #11: marriage vs cu's [View All]

[Lexingtonian]

Marriage is a federally recognized status in dealing with citizens. Civil unions are not- people in them are treated as individuals with a bunch of state rights (and obligations) individuals don't have.

Marriages confer pretty uniform legal rights nationwide- what state you try to get a prenup or a divorce or a change in child custody in matters a lot, but the (slow) trend is toward uniformity. American marriage status is generally respected internationally. Civil unions will vary, with legislatures and courts generally figuring out what their voters will agree with and setting the bar wherever that is.

In short, there is a 'separate but equal' kind of problem. People were willing to put up with it in 2000; the Massachusetts legalizing verdict Last November really was a breathtaking advance even supporters took some time to get used to. But civil unions are considered sort of the rusty '88 accident-damaged Chevy level of things on the pro-marriage side now here in New England- if that's the only thing available, it will do, but not otherwise.

The interesting thing about the Religious Right is that they claim to be religiously consistent, i.e. theologically justified. But they put up the fight against gay marriage not at their church door but at their state legislatures, courts, and the federal government. I've never seen the RR argument about why this should be so if they actually believe marriage is sacred and involves divine sanctioning, and thus the state-regulated/approval part of it is just secular legal contracts that they have no strict interest in. I'd guess it's that they know that if/when their state legalizes gay marriage it'll get past their church doors in short order due to their parishioners, no matter the copious and energetic misinterpretations of the Biblical material.