Marriage vs. civil unions

[EstimatedProphet]

I know the GLB community in general would rather have marriage as a right vs. a civil union, but could anyone describe what the true differences are? I've never heard it put very well...

[welshTerrier2]

1. governments should only permit civil unions

my view is that civil unions would provide a "package of rights and responsibilities" between two people ... it's strictly a legal agreement between two people that defines how they will interact with each other legally and how they will be treated by government bureaucracies (e.g. taxation, inheritance, etc) ...

marriage may historically include the above but it carries excess baggage that government has no business dealing with ... this includes various religious and cultural issues ...

so, i don't think gays should be able to get marriage licenses nor do i think anyone else should be able to get them ... if two people want to be recognized as a legal entity subject to a set of rights and responsibilities, they should enter into a civil union ... for those who cherish the religious or cultural associations they may see in "marriage", let them get married ... but it should not be a state-recognized institution ...

[JVS]

2. You have my vote.

[da_chimperor]

4. That's what I thought of it as well

I personally don't mind if they allow gay marriage. I'm actually more in favor of that than civil unions, but I think that's because I don't have any qualms about the cultural and/or religious background of marriage and I think it would be nice to see complete equality.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Unfortunately, it's too late for that boat.

The massive rewrite of laws that would be required makes it unlikely that marriage, as a legal institution, will ever be replaced by civil unions. Those 1000+ rights associated with marriage are mostly legal rights - each with a statue or common law decision in every state or at the Federal level to back up the right. Each of these would need to be amended, or reviewed under common law principles.

Besides, the state institution of marriage is essentially a civil union that is called marriage because that is the word that every state and most countries use in their relevant statutes and legal decisions. The state sets up rules about who may be civilly married, and how such couples have to go about accomplishing it. Most states have an exception with respect to how marriages are accomplished that permits marriages performed by a religious entity, according to the rules of that religious entity, to be entitled to recognition by the state.

No such exception exists for religious variation as to who may be married, and as a result there are thousands of gay and lesbian religious marriages that are not recognized civilly, even though they meet the process exception for religious marriages.

[yvr girl]

17. Most European countries do this

People go through the civil ceremony which makes it legal. They can then choose to have a religious ceremony, but it isn't required.

[RollergirlVT]

3. I cannot describe the difference but...

my question is, If a gay couple goes to the state (any state) and asks for a marriage license and are refused based on the gender of one of the participants how can that NOT interpreted as discrimination under our constitution? A marriage license is a legal contract issued by the state. Any consenting adult should therefore be eligible to obtain said license. The ceremony may take place in a religious ritual but it is not required. If the couple were to file a discrimination suit how could possibly lose?

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Legal issues involving inheritance, taxes, property, especially when

events/transactions take place across state lines.

A more salient question would be, what are the potential benefits to business of a two-tiered system of protection under the law extended beyond the subject of domestic partnerships.

Let's say I have a construction company, and most of my workers belong to a particular ethnic group.

It would be a great benefit to me if I could legally pay workers of that ethnicity half of what I pay others.

I will have a much more chance of getting some legislative help with my proposal if a precedent has been set targeting a group even more unpopular than my construction workers.

What the US should have done is work to enforce equal protection under the law that exists, rather than do away with it. Shoulda coulda woulda, too late now.

[GinaMaria]

6. My belief is that it stems from religeon (not all)

trying to claim marriage as a religeous ceremony and civil unions as unions made by the state. So, in effect most marriages would also be civil unions (requiring gov. license), but no civil unions would be marriages.

I was married in a secular humanist civil ceremony. By some people's definition, what I have is not a marriage. I strongly disagree. I am married and my husband and I have a marriage. It seems to me that people are trying to pass off civil unions as separate but equal. IMHO, that is BS.

No one individual or entity owns the word marriage. I define myself and my relationship with my husband. No one else.

[Ms. Toad]

7. As it currently stands

A civil union is an state creation. It has no meaning or weight outside of the state that created it. This means that individuals who entered into a civil union in Vermont has rights only in Vermont.

On the other hand, states are generally required to grant full faith and credit to another state's (or country's) marriages. Couples married in Massachusetts will ultimately almost certainly (barring a constitutional amendment) be treated as married everywhere. (with the 1000+ rights that come with marriage.) Most legal experts agree that although it will take court cases to resolve this, ultimately it will almost certainly be required based on Virginia v. Loving, the case that determined that interracial marriages from other states had to be granted full faith and credit by Virginia. Once the decision (based on federal constitutional rights) is made the matter will be settled for everyone.

Within a state marriages are directly or indirectly involved in numerous statutes and common law principles (court developed law - a lot of personal injury law and contract law, for example developed this way). Each of these uses marriage specific language. In order for civil unions to be equal even within a state, each of these statutes will need to be amended, and each common law re-evaluated through a subsequent court case (the cost of which will fall on the first gay couple to go through the courts for each of these multiple cases).

Aside from the real legal differences, gays are being excluded from marriage because they attack, destroy, devalue, etc. heterosexual marriages. That is a clear message that civil unions (something we are given so we don't tarnish the real thing) are second class - like separate water fountains reinforced the concept that blacks were second class.

[silverpatronus]

9. in other words, it's a violation of the full faith and credit clause. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

13. With respect to marriage

But likely not with respect to civil unions, which is one of the primary reasons civil unions are not an acceptable alternative (from a legal perspective).

[silverpatronus]

16. DOMA really fucked things up, didn't it...n/t

[jono]

8. The difference

is that until civil unions become recognized at a national level, no federal benefits (e.g., tax benefits) will be granted under any state's civil union laws. Potentially the MA rulings will change this, but I don't think those battles have fully played out yet.

I agree that the government should recognize only civil unions and strike references to marriage. However, if a civil union would give my partner and me at least some benefits before that happens, I'd happily take them.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. In terms of equal protection, civil unions would have to be offered to

heterosexuals in lieu of marriage. That's right. No more legal marriage, just civil unions. You want to get married? Go to a church or your non-religious counsellor and get married IN ADDITION TO YOUR CIVIL UNION ceremony by a government official.

Is this what * and the Christian Right really want? In order to put gays "in their place", * will consequently diminish the meaning of marriage overall. And after all, marriage is a state of mind more than a state of law.

[IronLionZion]

11. legal vs. religious?

Many Americans support legal rights for same-sex couples but are still reluctant to call it "marriage". They don't want to have to explain gay marriage to kids and teach it in schools and whatnot.

One serious thing to think about is that in the Bible Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. How in the hell did humanity emerge from that arrangement? *shudders at the thought*

[Djinn]

18. why is explaining "gay marriage" any harder

than explaining straight marriage - and since when is "marriage" taught in schools anyway? Marriage existed before any of the currently trendy monotheistic religions and they hijacked it for their own purposes they DON'T own it, it's not theirs to decide who can and can't marry.

As for the Adam and Eve bit I always wonder why the fundies never had a problem with a God that had a woman screw her sons!

[tsuki]

14. Marriage vs Civil Unions

I don't want to sound like part of the right wing, but to me marriage is a sacrament performed by a cleric. And if you have a religion that will perform the sacrament, then the state should back off. Religion controls sacraments.

Civil Unions are contracts, legally binding giving each person certain rights. The state controls secular law.

Many people do both, apply for a civil union, then have the sacrament of marriage performed by a cleric.

But not all. I know people that have had one, the sacrament, and not the other, marriage license.

[jdj]

15. there's a good article on marriage vs. civil unions here

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage_2.htm

it said the GAO came up with a list of 1049 benefits and protections afforded to heterosexual couples under marriage that don't apply in civil unions.

heres a pdf article that has a good side by side comparison:

http://nmmstream.net/hrc/downloads/meetup_docs/marriagevcivilunion.pdf

[Technowitch]

19. And I'll add one simple but obvious example of one of those rights

As others have noted, there are over 1000 rights you get automatically when you marry legally -- whether it's some big done-up wedding or through a drive-thru chapel at 4am in Vegas.

Let's suppose a man and woman are married -- doesn't matter how or where, just that it's so. Man dies. Woman automatically inherits EVERYTHING, regardless whether there's a Will in place. And I mean everything: House, property, savings accounts, retirement accounts, investments. The surviving widow also usually gets to keep any ongoing pension payments, too.

Better still: The inheritance is 100% tax free. This, even if the couple only just got married the day before the husband died.

Now, let's make that two women. They've had a combined household for, oh, let's say fifty years. They own property in common, although there are a few things that are in one woman's name only and not the other (happens, and is often unavoidable). Let's say one of these women also had a long career with a company and is drawing a pension. Then, alas, she dies.

What happens? The pension stops immediately. If there wasn't a Will in place, the deceased woman's family can and often will try to seize the deceased woman's property, including items held in common between the couple.

But let's say there's a Will. Good enough, right? No. The government will also step in, and assess inheritance taxes on everything the suriving widow manages to inherit anyway. 100% of anything owned solely by the deceased woman and 50% of anything owned in common.

To put it more bluntly and directly, I've been with my same-sex spouse since the summer of '97. We bought a house together, one which has appreciated considerably since we got it. If I were to die, the house would be reassessed immediately and my wife would be on the hook for tax payments covering 50% of the CURRENT value.

She'd be homeless, in all likelihood.

Now is that fair?