a guy on the radio just said that, my question is...
what the hell is the differance?
2007-03-22 10:18:01 · 13 answers · asked by Ghost-of-97058 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Well, if a "civil union" will give 100.00% of the 1000+ laws and rights currently given to state-legal marriage, then I am all for it. If any state-given marriage rights are denied to any legal citizens, then I am against it.
However, if they are in ANY way even slightly different, then you are creating a situation of "separate but equal," which is always separate but never equal. Just ask any black school child in the 1950s.
If people insist on calling marriage between two men or two women "civil unions," with all the rights of current marriage, I am OK with that also, as long as you call ALL marriages "civil unions." We cannot have two legal terms for the same thing, or they are not really the same thing.
2007-03-22 10:29:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
In most states, civil unions do not carry all of the responsibilities and rights that marriages do and ARE not recognized by every state or the US government.
And for the people like Raynbow, marriage ceremonies DO NOT have to be performed by a clergy person. A couple can get married at City Hall and that marriage is just as valid.
2007-03-23 11:16:47 · answer #2 · answered by jasgallo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legal marriages afford all rights, priveledges, protections and liberties as any other marriage.
Civil Unions do not.
It's that simple.
Besides, we've already learned through the fourteenth amendment that "Seperate by Equal is NEVER Equal."
Sorry, I will not settle for anything LESS than FULL EQUALITY even in name!
I don't want a passive white washed version of Marriage, I want FULLY EQUAL LEGAL MARRIAGE!
Many who say that kind of thing "I don't support gay marriage but do support Civil Unions" don't understand the difference, depend upon the general public (like you) not knowing the difference and can't seperate LEGAL marriage from the RELIGIOUS cerimony.
2007-03-22 17:29:16 · answer #3 · answered by DEATH 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, I think we have to go through the separate but equal stage before we can get full marriage rights. As ludicrous as the way black people were treated, it got people acclimated to the idea that there should be no barriers between blacks and whites. Getting people to overcome their prejudices takes time.
I think once people knew others in successful civil unions and realized the world wasn't going to end, they would be more likely to allow gays to marry.
2007-03-22 18:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by floridaguy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A civil union is a form of segregation.
Blacks to the back. Whites to the front.
Civil union for gays. Marriage for straights.
2007-03-22 18:05:43 · answer #5 · answered by girl with a gun 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One is proctored by a minister/priest or member of the church and is reguarded as LEGAL within the church (marriage). A civil union isn't acknowledged at all by the church and does not include 100% of the benefits of marriage. Pretty much, civil union is just a term used to pacify us. But i, for one, wont be COMPLETELY satisifed until i can have every single right that any heterosexual couple has.
2007-03-22 17:22:46 · answer #6 · answered by Raynebow_Diva 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It's like marriage, but without using the word. The benefits and legal issues with marriage are protected in the state, country, anywhere else in the world. A civil union's laws are legally protected by the state alone.
2007-03-22 17:25:27 · answer #7 · answered by Phoenix 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Marriage is a religious cerimony and a civil union is more like a business agreement.
I think all marriages should be according to the religion of your choice and only civil unions should be legally recognized.
2007-03-22 17:33:14 · answer #8 · answered by universatile love 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
We've tried separate but equal in the country before--- how well did that go?
2007-03-22 18:25:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its separate drinking fountains. Unconstitutional then, unconstitutional now.
2007-03-22 18:58:40 · answer #10 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋