Confused -- What's the diiference between "marriage" and "civil union"?

[elfin]

If that civil union confers all the legal rights that current traditional "marriage" does?

Is everyone getting hung up on the word "marriage?"

Could "marriage" between same sex couples be banned and full fledged civil unions be legal?

What's the net effect?

Is it just the difference between a church or non-church ceremony?

[nostamj]

1. bottom line, yes:

marriage = church sanctioned
civil union = government sanctioned

that's about it.

[redqueen]

2. Nope.

Justices of the Peace marry people every day -- they don't do civil unions.

Civil unions would be akin to 'separate but equal' marriages.

[MsUnderstood]

8. Seperate but equal, maybe

The key to this question is to understand that a civil union is a seperate but equal right to marriage.

I hope all of us remember the seperate but equal laws that provide seperate but equal restrooms, drinking fountains, schools for African Americans prior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. . .

That said as long as a civil union grants all of the state granted benefits of marriage:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

And all of these Federal Benefits:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Then I'm all for a civil union.

[redqueen]

3. Yes, it's the word 'marriage'.

Religious yahoos everywhere, kneejerking madly, have their collective panties in a wad because they consider 'marriage' to be something tied to religion.

Could be that in the distant past they were right, but nowadays you can go to the JOP and get married, so :shrug:

Sick thing is that the first thing out of most of these kneejerkers mouths as to a reason why we shouldn't allow gays to marry, is that they think the next thing you know that people will be allowed to marry animals, sisters to marry broters, etc.

Sick bastards, eh?

[rucky]

4. In Vermont...

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html#faq2

Note that a party to a civil union is included, by law, in any definition or use of the terms "spouse," " family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout Vermont law.




Basically, it's marriage... but that word is so loaded.

I guess it's so folks like Kerry can oh-so-safely say they're for same-sex unions and against same-sex marriages. They're counting on people not knowing that there is no difference from a legal perspective.

But if religion is the intended difference between the terms, what's the government doing getting themselves involved in ANY type of marriage?

[redqueen]

5. That's the thing... it's not.

"if religion is the intended difference between the terms, what's the government doing getting themselves involved in ANY type of marriage?"

Religion has zip to do with marriage these days. Know any married atheists? I do.

[unfrigginreal]

6. The only difference is that civil unions...

stand a better chance of public approval than marriage.

[sendero]

7. I'm probably in the minority...

..... but I could live with the idea of 'civil unions' available to gays and lesbians, conferring all the rights equivalent to marriage on the couple.

This could be a sop to the religious folks, where we say it is not a marriage but it in effect is, giving almost everyone what they want.

Such an arrangement would not preclude a church wedding, it would simply be a matter of a 'civil union' license as opposed to a 'marriage license'.

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[dusty64]

15. Sure as long as ALL

the benefits and rights are included, that will be the catch.

[redqueen]

9. And here's why a civil union is not good enough.

"According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage provides 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 are a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, and provision of insurance for families."

Dennis Kucinich, praising the Massachusetts court decision.

[sendero]

11. I didn't know that....

... so I have to rethink my position. To me, getting the Feds to recognize civil unions for such purposes would be needed.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. Guess it all depends on what your definition of a marraige is.

Is it a piece of paper? Is it the committment between two people itself, is it the ceremony that announces their official joining?

The right wing churches have a problem with the religious ceremony being applied to those who they believe are in open defiance of God's law. I understand that objection, though I don't share their interpretation of the Scriptures. But since the government should not be in the business of regulating religion the decision on church weddings should be left entirely up to the individual denominations. Likewise, the churches, despite their right to their personal beliefs, have no right whatsoever to dictate what the legal rights of other citizens should be, especially when the clear implication is because you're sinning against God, you don't deserve "special rights" (like being covered under your partner's health insurance, or hospital visitation, custody issues, etc.)

No true Christian, regardless of their feelings on homosexuality itself, could possibly justify such blatant discrimination. Problem is that many of them just take the word of Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, the Pope or (God help us) Fred Phelps and never consider that reality at all :-(

[dusty64]

12. I heard that civil unions are ONLY

recognized in the state in which performed. Marriage applies across the Country and has ALL the federal benefits and legal rights that come with it.

[rucky]

13. That makes more sense than anything

the explanation, that is...not the concept of separating the two.

[elfin]

14. Thanks for all the input

Looks like this will be a BIG campaign issue and maybe the Dems should put the Repugs on the spot of which civil benefits they would DENY to loving committed couples. Make them say, one point by one point where they would deny a "spousal" right - it would reveal them to be the cold hearted party they are.