Is civil union an adequate compromise (with legal protections)?

[hlthe2b]

If marriage were restricted to traditional female/male unions and civil unions with identical rights/legal protections was provided for gay unions, would you consider this to be an adequate compromise? If no, please tell us your thoughts.

(On edit, this seems reasonable to me, but as a heterosexual female, I can't really have the same perspective as one who is impacted by it, so I am quite interested in DUers' thoughts)

[La_Serpiente]

1. I would view it

as a temporary solution. The main focus right now is to provide equality in the eyes of the law.

[_Jumper_]

5. I agree with that

Our final goal must be legalizing homosexual marriage. Civil unions are a second-class classification that stigmatizes homosexual couples.

Would we have been satisfied in the 1960's if interracial couples were not allowed to marry and been limited to second-class civil unions? I think not. Forty years from now people will look back on this time and will be shocked to see why people opposed homosexual marriage IMO.

[Noordam]

2. IT is a word game with the Repugs...

By calling it a Civil Union.... you move the ball from their court into your own......IMHO

[foreigncorrespondent]

14. HOW????

Bush* has already said earlier this year that he does NOT support gay marriage OR CIVIL UNIONS! The rethugs don't want gays to have any rights what so ever.

[SahaleArm]

3. Marriage should be completely removed from law.

And replaced with civil unions for all partnerships; avoids the Church rhetoric.

[Occulus]

11. Legal recognition of marriage should be divorced from religion.

Since we can go to a Justice of the Peace and get it done devoid of religion, there is no 'sanctity of marriage' argument to use against the state stepping in and bestowing the legal status and advantages of marriage upon two consenting adults who are not already related by blood or marriage.

Sorry that was so wordy; I had to get it all out :)

[Touchdown]

4. Only when the federal Government recognizes it.

Married couples get tax credits from the IRS. Gay people in CUs can't take advantage of these, since the Feds don't recognize Vt's law.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. Now that brings up a whole other question....

If Massachussettes does legalize civil unions (which seems the likely outcome} how soon before other states, especially others in the northeast, follow suit? For example, wouldn't it be silly of New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live Free or Die" to not recognize civil unions that are legal in 2 neighboring states, not to mention marriage legal in Canada.

Unlike PNAC's theory about Iraq setting the stage for "democracy" in the Middle East, I think THIS issue is a domino effect that will actually happen.

[DrWeird]

6. Is a second drinking fountain

next to the white drinking fountain and adequate compromise?

[La_Serpiente]

9. I wish there was an opportunity for marriage

There was the Civil Rights legislation of 1958 that was passed. Although it was a weaker bill, it represented something to work off of.

On top of that, GLBT people do not have the large numbers of people in their movement to really call for radical change. At that time, tens of millions of people were being discriminated against. Sure, there are the others from the Civil Rights era, but people aren't really active now like they were before.

What do the statistics tell us? It tells us that we have to better educate the public on this issue. Should we back down and not mention it? No. We must always throw it out at the voters.

[pyro1392]

7. The government shouldn't even be involved

Civil unions or marriages should just be private contracts. There's no reason the government should be deciding these things.

[Occulus]

12. Oh,

but we have to reward them, we have to...

:eyes:

[foreigncorrespondent]

15. If the government doesn't get involved...

...then how are the laws going to be made?

[Orangepeel]

10. it is a necessary first step

Waiting for "marriage" will leave people waiting forever. Get "civil unions" recognized and then use the courts to declare that the separate standard is discriminatory.

It is stupid that so many people have a hang up about the word marriage, but they do. The term civil unions is much more palatable to many.

Sometimes it is better to take the half loaf. Not only are you then not starving, but it is usually easier to get the second half than it was to get the first.

[foreigncorrespondent]

13. I have to say NO!

People want to preach equality. They say they stand by equality for all, yet don't want to give us legal marriage rights. If we call it anything but marriage, then it really isn't equal is it?

And if hets have marriage and we have civil unions, it will still leave the door wide open for federally sanctioned discrimination.

Isn't it high time the United States moved out of the dark ages and into the 21st century?

[hlthe2b]

16. I think this is a very separate question from "do you support

marriage for gays" in the poll that Karlschneider has going. So, I'd like to give it a kick and see how similar the findings will be...