If the US offered national civil union as opposed to gay marriage, would you go for it?

Question

Or better yet, if the US only offered civil union for all of its citizens regardless of orientation or gender of the two involved, would that sit well with you? For me, not personally since my temple offers SSM as an option. But what if the debate were ended like a parent ends a fued amongst siblings and puts its foot down and says this is it, take it or leave it. After all, marriage is a sacrament and has no place in governmental policy.

Answer 1

The government should allow couples of any sort to register as domestic couples, and get all rights afforded what we now called "married".

Then they should get out of the marriage businsess entirely.

Answer 2

No.
Civil unions do not offer the exact same benefits and privileges as Marriage.
Making a "Separate but Equal" institution is Unconstitutional.
Marriage in a temple or church may be considered a sacrament by some but the religious ceremony is NOT RECOGNIZED by the government. The only thing recognized is the purchase of a marriage License, having it signed and witnessed. All Ceremonies after that are superfluous.

The funny thing is people are so up in arms claiming marriage is sacred and such but I used to work for a restaurant and one of the jobs at the end of the night was to take two ketchup bottles that were half full and "marry" one to the other making one full bottle. I don't see others complaining about that and it was anything but a sacrament.

Answer 3

YES! I would be happy with that, as long as it carried the rights associated with marriage, mainly, the right to sponsor my partner for immigration here to the US so we wouldn't have to be apart. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I would settle for being able to sponsor my partner for immigration even WITHOUT civil unions.

But let's face it, civil unions will not be the same as marriage in this country. Separate but equal does not work. If the civil union is the same as marriage, then call it a marriage. But if you want to believe that they are different, then we need to get the religious connotaion out of the government and make EVERYONE have civil unions, and NO government marriages. Marriage can still have a civil union legal connotation, but no more in terms of government rights

Answer 4

Some states do offer civil unions as opposed to gay marriage. And would I go for it? Well, in my state neither is permitted and considering the fact that I am in love with another woman. The mass majority of others within my state do not condone my feelings. I disagree with this because I don't stand in judgment of their relationships, whatever they may be. Nevertheless, at this time I can do nothing to overpower the ruling of the majority except not to succumb to their prejudice by disregarding the love in my heart and loving someone who is more socially acceptable. I may not have the right to "marry" her nor even in this state to enter into a "civil union" but that does not mean that I cannot be with her. I am still permitted that freedom at least. If it were offered though... yes, I would do it... as a pledge of my love for her before all others. As it stands now... I guess we'll be driving to Vermont.

Answer 5

Marriage should really have no place in the government as far as who is allowed to marry goes (consenting adults only, of course). Naturally things like taxes, inheritance, hospital visitaton, etc. are things that will be regulated by the government, which is probably how it should be. I would be thrilled if there was a nation wide civil union policy put in place. As long as all of the benefits afforded to hetero couples were given to same sex couples I think it would be awesome. Truthfully, I don't think it's entirely fair or just to try to get religions to change their stance on gay marriage, they are entitled to their beliefs. I don't really like the religious take on gay marriage, but it really doesn't affect me unless our dear president keeps forgetting about the whole separation of church and state thing, and continues in his crusade to distract America from the real issues by focusing way too much on immigration and gay marriage.

Answer 6

I think BOTH Civil Unions AND Marriages should BOTH be offered to couples as OPTIONS. Let the couple decide which to choose!

However, I would only choose the National Civil Union until I could get my full Gay Marriage Rights; lol, in other words, no settling until I can get married!

Answer 7

This is what I figure.
The choice of civil unions and/or marriage should be offered to everyone. The couple could choose marriage if they want it to be recognized by the church and religion. Or choose a civil union, which would be the same but without any of the religion behind it. Both equal rights, priviledges,etc... The only difference is if you want (any form) of God involved.

Answer 8

It galls me that religious folks have claimed "marriage" for their own selves, insisting that it is a union blessed by god. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all over the huge country of ours, you must have a license from the city, county and/or state in order to get married. That makes ALL marriages 'civil unions' as far as I'm concerned.

I've been saying for a few years that we should have only civil unions which require a license. Then everyone can have their civil union in front of a judge (or other official) and be done with it. If religious folks then wish to have a religious ceremony, have at it, but it would be optional for those who choose.

So... reserve your word "marriage" as a sacrament in your churches, but let any two adults become united as a couple as they see fit. Darn, this subject gets me going. ugh!

Answer 9

Why do homosexuals get offended at the idea of only having unions? If the federal government offered this to us I would feel that the battle for our civil rights was ABSOLUTELY WON!

Who cares what people call it as long as we are provided with the same rights as other couples. That is the point of this whole fight. A name is a name but the meaning and rights behind that name would be the same. And that is what counts!

Why should it matter so much if conservatives feel better calling it a union instead of a marriage? What matters are the rights that we would get!
I've asked myself this question several times. Good question.

Answer 10

If it were uniform for all people, I'd be fully happy with it. If there was federal civil unions, but still legal marriage for straight couples, that's not ok (though, I think if that happened that it wouldn't stand like that for too terribly long). It would be a means towards the ends, but not the ends themselves.