Why are CIVIL UNIONS insufficient for securing the rights of SAME-GENDER COUPLES?

Question

John L: From American Heritage Dictionary:
GENDER
3a. The condition of being female or male; sex.
3b. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

Civil Unions are like having the right to buy steel-cut oats, but I can't boil them for breakfast because the Gov't. has refused me the right to water.

Many people take for granted that their government will acknowledge their relationships of love and care. Yet some relationships are arbitrarily denied that recognition. The results may be devastating. A partner may be denied the rights to ;

make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf when she is sick, or even visit the partner or the partner’s child in hospital;

take bereavement or sick leave to care or mourn for a partner, or a partner’s child;

share equal rights and equal responsibilities for children in their care;

have their partner covered under their health or employment benefits;

apply for immigration and residency if their partner is from another country;

file joint tax returns and enjoy tax benefits for couples, obtain joint insurance policies, or even rent or own property together;

obtain a protection order against domestic violence;

get a fair settlement of property when the relationship ends;

inherit from a deceased partner if he lacked a valid will;

choose a partner’s final resting place;

obtain pension benefits if the partner dies.

Answer 2

I personally can see no reason for civil unions. If they grant the same right, benefits and obligations as marriage then they might as well be called same-gender marriage. But I believe that in our home state we will have to settle for same-gender civil unions (if that even gets the Gov's signature) and realize it is much more than anyone would have expected even a couple of years ago.

Oh, to answer your question I believe in Vermont that parental rights are not automatically given to the non-biological parent even if both partners were in the civil union when the child was born to one of the partners (or at least that is what my cousin says is the case for her and her partner).

Answer 3

I'm sure Civil Unions are just fine. Call it what you want. It's still joining two people together. Gay's can still marry with a ceremony of their choice! I prefer to call it Marriage.

Marriage is a loving bond and spiritual commitment between two people who love each other, not our government. I'm Gay. If I decide I love some one to tangle up with financially, and any other way, I will find a way. I'm not waiting for Joe Hick Fundie to approve.

Still I believe that I should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

I think this whole marriage thing being sacred for only a male and female completely bogus. When I worked in a bindery (making books / printing), when we would merge one component with another we called it "marrying"... Heck, if the book and its cover can get "married", then so can I!!!!

Gregory

PS. Just because I can doesn't mean I will. Relationships are hard!

Answer 4

As a Christian, my objection is the State's involvement in the term "marriage" in any respect. To the State, "marriage" isn't something greater effective than settlement regulation. in my opinion, if the State needs to apply the term "civil union" to confer with all legally binding cohabitation agreements governing inheritance, powers of lawyer circulate, and taxation, i does no longer be adversarial. as long as they do no longer decrease me to a minimum of one better half (of any gender i p.c.) - by fact ought to be undue interference. I ought to have the means to make such "civil unions" with as many human beings as i'm able to talk into it. Now, as quickly as we are conversing "marriage," that should be under the pervue of my faith (which at present purely we could me have one better half).

Answer 5

what if that couple happens to be of a christian faith. several christian churches recognise homosexual marriage.

why should these people not have the right to be married.

i think that marriage should be taken out of government hands. and that all legal unions should be civil unions. and then each religion/church can marry or handfast or wahtever bonding ritual that they preform at will.

the civil union should be going to the countyclerk and fillingo our legal paperwork stateing your intent to live together as a couple.

the religious aspect should be done on an individual basis by the church of the choice of the couple.

Answer 6

Due to the way that the laws are written.

Although civil unions sound good, they do not consider the many previous laws that have been passed that contain the word 'marriage'.

Answer 7

Separation of Church and state. It should be a non-issue and gays should be free to marry.

Having said that... Freedom of Religion - Churches should retain the right to refuse to marry gays if it's against their beliefs. Plenty of other churches and faiths to go to.

Answer 8

Although it has more rights than domestic partnership, it still does not have all the rights of marriage. It's a step in the right direction however,it is not a complete win!

Answer 9

Because, currently, they are not designed as equal to marriage. And they don't even exist in most parts of the country.

Answer 10

Succinctly?? Civil unions do not promote equality.