Civil Unions Do Not Mean Equality Unless They Are FEDERAL

[ruggerson]

States can grant gay and lesbian couples civil unions all day long, but all it means is that they get certain rights and privileges granted to them under STATE law.

Which means - no social security survivorship equality, no federal inheritance tax equality and no federal income tax equality. And a host of other federal rights granted to married couples, which gay couples will not receive unless a federal law is passed.

The country supports civil unions by about 70-30.

Even Bush has said he supports civil unions.

I'm for full marriage equality. But I also realize that civil rights are gained incrementally.

So, if the word "marriage" is the big bugaboo, why doesn't the US Congress pass a simple civil unions bill, granting to gays and lesbian couples all the federal rights of marriage if they obtain a civil union in their home state?

Send it to Bush's desk and dare him to sign it. If he refuse, he will be shown as a liar and a hypocrite yet again (and a flip flopper). If he signs it, it effectively eliminates the issue as a wedge issue for the dark side.

So send it on up to Bush. Call the Republicans on their bluff.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Do not accept Jim Crow

Marriage by any other name is not equal marriage.

[ruggerson]

3. I agree that marriage is the ultimate goal

But if we can get civil unions on a federal level, which give us ALL the rights and benefits of marriage, except for the name marriage, are our families not infinitely better off having those protections until it can be called "marrige" at some future date?

It won't stop us from fighting for full marriage equality. But it will:

a) give us an enormous boost in the long term fight.

and

b) throw the entire issue right back at the Republicans.

[pnwmom]

5. And besides that, if we have federally recognized civil unions

then anyone who wants to can call themselves married. If they want a religious ceremony, they can find someone to perform it. That's what's happening in Vermont.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Jim Crow was considered an "acceptable compromise"

Jim Crow was considered an "acceptable compromise" on the matter of racial equality. Look at how well that turned out?

We must not accept civil unions as an "acceptable compromise" on the matter of marriage equality. To do so gives credence to bigotry against gay people, just as Jim Crow gave credence to bigotry against blacks. Civil unions will NOT give us an enormous boost; like Jim Crow, civil unions will be used as an excuse not to extend full equality before the law.

What part of "separate is never equal" is too difficult to understand? Was Thurgood Marshall wrong when he wrote that?

[ruggerson]

9. I'm not sure who said "acceptable compromise"

but I'm not talking about compromising.

I'm talking about moving in the right direction right now and relentlessly continue fighting for further gains.

The ultimate goal is marriage equality.

But I"m not sure why it's a good thing to let gay families suffer until we get "marriage".

If the choice is to have full civil unions while we fight for marriage or to have nothing while we fight for marriage, I think it's a no brainer.

[MountainLaurel]

2. Abso-fucking-lutely

One of my best friends is currently facing the issue of what will happen when his foreign-born partner of almost 4 years finishes his Ph.D., because there is no avenue for spouse-based immigration for gays.

[pnwmom]

4. I agree. Federal civil unions, with the same rights as

marriage, would be a much bigger step forward than if a bunch of states suddenly approved marriage.

[HockeyMom]

6. Make all government issued licenses Civil Unions

for both gays and straights. Everyone gets the same federal and state benefits. You want to be "married"? Go to a church. If a particular church refuses to "marry" you, i.e, gay couples, or divorced couples (Catholic Church), your government issued Civil Union will still be recognized and all the civil benefits granted.

Separate civil "marriage" and religious "marriage".

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. How many times does this need to be stated?

ALL MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES IS ALREADY CIVIL AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The issue is not and never has been about religious marriage. The matter is legal marriage, which is by definition a civil, secular thing thanks to the First Amendment. In case it needs to be repeated for the very thick headed, here it is again:

ALL MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES IS ALREADY CIVIL AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

[ulysses]

10. great idea.

Wish I could see it happening.