Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

Many people in the United States of America think that by offering civil unions or domestic partnerships, they are doing LGBT individuals a favor. A large portion of this comes from the belief that marriage is a religious ceremony, and homosexuality is a big taboo for a lot of religious people.

But this actually ignores one very important thing: marriage is not just religious, it is also civil. Now for years this has been wrapped up into one thing, but ever since the separation of church and state they have become two different animals. Basically you can be married without a religious ceremony, and you can be married without recognition by the government (the situation currently tied to cases of polygamy).

So the idea is that somehow, by allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, religious people are providing something adequately similar to same-sex couples without “destroying the institution of marriage”—i.e. being between one man and one woman.

(Keep in mind: I very much dislike the terminology with this discussion, because that leaves transgender individuals in a very awkward situation. Why do we use “sex” to describe us anyways? “Gender” is more appropriate, even though educated individuals in such matters know that the idea of a binary gender system using “man” and “woman” is entirely arbitrary and arguably outdated.)

Now, some may be wondering what the differences are between civil unions and domestic partnerships…well, essentially nothing. These are two terms that basically mean the same thing: the state will grant same-gender couples similar rights and privileges to marriage. It all depends on which term the state decides to use. Currently “civil unions” is used in New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii; likewise, “domestic partnerships” is used in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, the District of Columbia, Colorado, Maryland, Maine, and Wisconsin. 

However, that definition is a little skewed because it leaves the wrong impression. They are NOT the same as marriage. And the reality is there are a lot of people out there who do not know what the differences really are between civil unions / domestic partnerships and gay marriage. Well, today is your lucky day!

Civil Unions / Domestic Partnerships

I have already described this briefly, but there are slight differences which you may be interested in.

Firstly, civil unions were technically created specifically to provide same-gender couples rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-gender civil marriage. The extent of rights, benefits, and responsibilities offered in the United States to civil union couples varies depending on the specific state recognizing the union.

However, domestic partnerships are legal or personal relationships between two individuals who live together and share common domestic lives but are neither joined by marriage nor civil unions. Thus, heterosexual couples could obtain a domestic partnership if they so desired. Again, the rights and privileges offered depend on where you live, but generally these rights and privileges are inferior to both marriages and civil unions.

In all actuality, there are dozens of different terms for such unions and that terminology is still evolving; the important thing to remember is the exact level of rights and responsibilities conferred varies widely from place to place, and the federal government does not recognize them.

Marriage

 

On the other hand, marriage is exactly just that: offering a marriage license to same-gender couples. But it is important to recognize that in this discussion, this is a civil ceremony and not a religious one. When two men or two women ask for the right to marry, they are asking for the government to recognize that marriage and not the church.

President Obama has maintained a lack of action on legalizing same-gender marriage because marriage has traditionally been a state right, not a federal right. As of right now, because Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996, the federal government does not actually recognize same-gender marriages and states are not required to recognize them either.

Currently, only ten states will recognize a same-gender marriage: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Washington DC will also recognize a same-gender marriage, as will Oregon's Coquille and Washington state's Suquamish native American tribes.

However, as of today you can only obtain a marriage license for same-gender couples from six of these states and the District of Columbia: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The rest either (1) only recognizes ceremonies performed in other states, or (2) the laws legalizing them have not officially come into effect.

It is also important to note that same-gender couples CAN get married in religious ceremonies without government involvement; the religious ones all depend on the church or denomination as to whether they want to recognize them. But even if they are recognized by a church or denomination, the government in general does NOT recognize it—aside from the few instances previously mentioned.

Why Is Legalizing Same-Gender Marriage So Important?

 

The answer is simple, equality; and I am not talking about the simple equal right to marry, I am talking about the ability to be equally recognized as a married individual by the government.

In the state of Illinois alone, there are roughly 650 state rights, benefits, and protections that are denied to committed same-sex couples and their families. Things such as:

• Emergency medical decision-making power
• Hospital visitation rights
• Equal tax treatment for couples and families at the state and local level
• Health insurance coverage for families and including children
• Automatic inheritance without a will and equal estate tax treatment 
• Right to take Family Emergency and Medical Leave
• Spousal Testimonial Privilege
• Equal access to domestic relations laws and procedure, including divorce, division of property, and visitation of children
• State spousal benefits including workers' compensation and spousal pension coverage
• Equal access to civil actions dependent on spousal status, including wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium
• Right to share a nursing home
• Right to control disposition of a partner's remains

Furthermore, there are over 1,100 rights and privileges and protections, in general, (such as the ones listed above) offered by the federal government to anyone with a marriage license. Likewise, these are not offered to same-gender couples, even if they were to have a civil union or domestic partnership, because of the simple fact that they do not have a marriage license.

So what does this mean? Hypothetically, were I to obtain a civil union in the state of Illinois with another man that I love, the two of us would be granted many rights offered to traditionally married couples. However, if we were to move to Michigan because my job required it, Michigan would not be obliged to keep the same rights and privileges and protections that Illinois allowed us.

To make this point more clear: If we were to adopt a boy while we were living in Illinois—which is a privilege currently granted to same-gender couples in the state of Illinois—and we were to move to Michigan, that boy would no longer be considered our son. Furthermore, our civil union that Illinois gave us would no longer be valid either in the state of Michigan.

Even though we view ourselves to be a couple and together the two of us would be providing for our son in every way possible, the state of Michigan would consider all of us to be just random persons living in the same house—and not in any way a family. And since we would not be considered the parents or even legal guardians of our son, as a minor he would be considered an orphan and could be placed in social services.

Now, admittedly these are hypothetical situations about myself; however, do not think that they are some far-fetched fantasies. LGBT individuals experience these situations every day in the United States. And that is what all of this is about. It is not just about marriage but about equal rights, benefits, privileges, and protections as citizens of the United States of America.

So tell me, do you still think that civil unions are adequate replacements for marriage? Do you still think allowing committed same-gender couples to marry “destroys the sanctity of marriage”? Do you still think that your religious ideas are more important than my basic constitutional rights?

Just remember, that marriage equality is not just about your religious ideas. The very lives of people are at stake. And allowing marriage is just one part of it—one big part that can alleviate many inequalities—changing policies and legislation is another.

As of May 12, 2012