I'm sorry, I can't quite write a long coherent response to this but my main message is this: the civil rights movement has shown that separate is not equal. The only way civil unions vs. marriage would be fair is if EVERYONE was required to have a civil union and marriage was a religious ceremony only.
Yeah, that argument makes sense. I'm totally on board with changing the legal term for everyone while explicitly making marriage religious, which I think is a good way to do it.
That's never going to happen-- you're never going to succeed in doing what people will perceive as "taking away" rights from them. The only thing you can do is extend MORE rights to MORE people, and unfortunately that isn't in the cards yet, even if we elect a Democrat.
Nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. That would be equal application of marriage.
In California, any civil union, or even if you just LIVE together for 6 months grants your partner all rights and benefits due to any other life partner. This applies to gays as well.
The only problem I heard about was healthcare for Federal employees.
California has domestic partnerships, which do not confer any federal marriage benefits, and requires both people to have a common residence, as well as missing some (relatively minor) state benefits.
Reply
Reply
Reply
In California, any civil union, or even if you just LIVE together for 6 months grants your partner all rights and benefits due to any other life partner. This applies to gays as well.
The only problem I heard about was healthcare for Federal employees.
Reply
California does not have civil unions.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment