what is the difference between gay marriage and a civil union and are they mutually exclusive?

Question

I look at marriage more as a religous ceremony with legal force and at civil union as a legal union without benefit of religion. The whole argument surrounding this matter is specious and there is a pressing need to state it in a manner that every one can understand.

Answer 1

People need to start realizing that the phrase "gay marriage" is like saying "black marriage" or "deaf marriage" or "jewish marriage" or "vegan marriage". Marriage is marriage.

So the question then becomes "what is the difference between marriage and a civil union?".

First and foremost, Americans seem to have forgotten, chosen to forget, or never even realized that we have already declared that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. So even if civil unions and marriage were, in fact, equal, it's still segregationist and by its very existence is NOT equal.

As for the second part of your original question, I would say that the two are absolutely NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that in keeping with the policy of separation of church and state, every couple wishing to be legally bound to each other should be awarded a civil union. If that couple wishes to be married, they should then seek marriage from their church, etc.

Answer 2

Thank you for the question. It seems to me that in order to answer that question I have to divide it in half. I would ask anyone who starts reading this to read the entire answer, both parts. 1. Civil unions as a governmental function -- I absolutely agree with you. The secular government of our secular country should not be in the business of marrying people -- ANY PEOPLE. The government should offer a package of benefits to committed couples of whatever type -- and should call it something, and civil unions work as well as anything else. Marriage should remain a religious commitment and ceremony. The government's only part should be the granting of that package of benefits - which could be granted in the same manner that a marriage license is now granted. Which brings us to ... 2. Marriage, as a function of the churches and other religious groupings should NOT be interfered with, by anyone. That means that no Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister should ever be pressured to marry gay couples. ... It also means, in a nation with no established religion and religious freedom, something else however. I ask that you think about this seriously. Let your automatic reaction rage first, then sit back and think about it, as an American. It also should mean that those priests, ministers, and rabbis from sects that support gay marriage and believe it to be as holy as straight marriage (among officially recognized denominational groups you can start with: The United Church of Christ, The Church of the Brethren, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, the North American Spiritualist Church, the Unity Church, the Congregations of Reform Judaism, the Correllian Nativist Church International, and majorities of congregations in several denominations that leave it up to individual parishes to decide whether or not they honor gay marriage as holy [there you can start with the Congregationalists and the Episcopalians, the Conservative Egalitarian Jewish Congregations and the Covenant of the Goddess]. ) I or anyone else like me has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to determine what YOUR priest can do; but contrawise, you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to decide what my priest can do. Your sacraments and your canon law must be respected by your coreligionists -- but likewise our sacraments and our canon law must be respected by my coreligionists. That is the nature of freedom of religion - and that is really what this whole debate is about, gays are incidental to it - a convenient cipher that can be used to argue a very different point -- that being -- does one group of religions, in the United States, despite the founding documents of this great nation, have the right or the power to use the government to enforce their beliefs on another group of religions. The last time this was tested was in the 1800s -- and the decision was clearly yes. It's being tested again, I think the country is more complex now, and it is less likely to succeed in the long run -- the first sign of that was the collapse of the bans on interracial marriage. So call it civil unions if you want -- for everyone -- and let the churches and synagogues and temples and groves DO WHAT THEY EACH WANT TO DO about who to marry -- which then will be a purely religious ceremony. I think if you think it over carefully, you will agree that is a logical solution (and one already proposed in the New York State Assembly by Assemblywoman Deborah Glick (D-Manhattan). ) Thank you again for the question. Kindest thoughts, Hermes

Answer 3

Is this actually true??? People who wed at city hall and enter into a civil union do not have the same benefits as married couples do??? That has to be wrong.....

In Canada (and YES, we have gay marriage) you don't even need a civil union....sheesh, couples who live together are afforded common-law status within 6 months to 3 years (the length depends on the province and type of legislation, ie. estates, taxes, family). All those men (or women) who thought they were avoiding being "tied down" or having to give half their $$ to their girlfriends by not marrying them are SCREWED.hahaha.

I see that there is no difference bewteen the two, and the way I see it is that there should be no need to differentiate and they should all just be marriages or all just unions.

Answer 4

Once again, when you're dealing with the government, it's all about money. Civil unions are a legal union without the financial benefits of marriage. Spouses in civil unions can't insure the other spouse for health coverage. Spouses in civil union are not eligible to receive survivor's benefits from Social Security. Just to give a few examples. Spouses in marriage are eligible for such benefits.

Answer 5

There is no such thing as gay marriage. There is marriage and there is civil union. A civil union is a contract between two people, relating only to them. A marriage is a culturally established institution affirmed in law, not simply a contract. A marriage involves family (unlimited #s') and the social and legal obligations inherant to them. The relationships between spouses, children, extended family members and in-laws span the greater part of the law in every country. Marriage is ancient, marriage isn't broken. Changing it requires serious consideration, reasoned discussion and broad support. It is not specious to do so.

Answer 6

A marriage is seen traditionally as the creation of a lifelong (ha, ha) partnership [of a man and woman!], from which both parties obtain certain rights - even after the other dies.
Also traditionally, it has been associated with a religious service, in which the State's legal requirements are also met (witnesses, valid officiant who has checked ages, expression of intent - and of freely willing - to be married by both parties, etc). "Registry Office" marriage, performed by a licenced official is also valid.
A civil union is almost the same BUT from your question and the replies, there are obviously certain limits on partners' rights not available in a marriage in the US.
Here in New Zealand a CU gives identical rights as a 'marriage' - but a marriage can only be made between people of different sexes - gays need to make a CU. (And most churches have forbidden their clergy to become "Civil Union Celebrants" as well as "Marriage Celebrants", so gay couples can't really have a CU in a church!
The fact that 'gay marriage' and CU are used would indicate to me that two gays in a marriage would have (at least in the State where they were married) exactly the same rights on each other's property, ability to act as next-of-kin, receive some of the other's estate on death without the deceased's family having all rights to it, etc. I read an article in a mental health magazine here which recounted two different stories, one from before and one from after CU became legal here.
In the first, the long-time partner, who had nursed the other through his illness and had shared the house with him for 20+ years, 'lost everything'. The house had belonged to the partner who died and had never been made a joint asset. The family, who never accepted their gay member or his partner, stepped in on death and took over the funeral and started proceedings to evict the survivor. (No will had been made - a very silly mistake in the days before CU.) The dead guy was buried - his partner knew he wanted to be cremated - and so it went on until the poor guy lost everything except his photos and personal effects, as he couldn't afford to fight for 'his' share of the estate.
The other example was also where the partner hadn't made a will - which is still a good with a CU (or at any time) - but had entered a CU. Basically no problems, even tho the dead guy's family were not much friendlier than the one in the other example. As CU partner the survivor had made the medical decisions up till the death, he made the funeral arrangements and sat with some of both families at the funeral. He inherited the estate that had been 'theirs' for 37+ years, as the partner.
A 'straight' married couple and probably a gay married couple would never have had the hassles of the first couple, because 'marriage' gives the 2nd person rights over medical decisions, etc.

May not help you much - but I feel there should be, as here in NZ - no difference between a 'married' couples' rights and a CU couples' rights. And then it doesn't matter if both partners are men, both are women, one's male and one female or they're both transgendered!!

Answer 7

You are right. Each married couple is married through their church, or whatever. In the eyes of the government, every married couple is truly in a civil union. it is a merger, partnership, or whatever you want to call it.

Homosexuals do not necessarily want to be married, they want the benefits of having a recognized civil union by the government.

Atheist are not married if you think about it. They go through the legal channels, and have the same civil union as the christian couple who gets married. But, no one protest that for some reason.

Answer 8

A civil union is a feel good piece of paper between 2 people. No special benefit - federal Government does not recognize it for tax purposes, many States have voted not to recognize it.

So right now it is an empty piece of paper

Answer 9

There really is no difference but one is called a marriage and one is a civil union.

Answer 10

I think the difference would be the benefits. That's why the want gay marriage to be passed so the partner can have the same benefits as heterosexuals partners.