Reply #102: I disagree. It's a civil rights issue just as "separate but equal" was. [View All]

[Unvanguard]

Because it means that the law is intentionally assigning a status publicly-recognized as inferior and less significant to same-sex couples: it is a way for the state to institutionalize anti-gay bigotry, and to deny same-sex couples meaningful access to a central civil institution that is a constitutional right.

Civil unions mean very little in some ways; they are rarely enacted despite ostensible public support, they are often not very comprehensive, and when they are comprehensive they sometimes incite anti-gay initiatives of their own (e.g. in Washington last election). There's some polling evidence, too, that people mostly "support" them as a response to advocates of marriage equality than as an independent matter of justice: that is, they might say "You shouldn't get marriage because you can get civil unions", but not particularly advocate for--or, indeed, when push comes to shove, actually oppose--offering them to same-sex couples. (Support for civil unions climbed significantly after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage.)