Civil Unions in the United States

[Soheran]

(I apologize pre-emptively for "yet another gay marriage thread", especially since there is a DOMA one on the front page already. I think my topic, however, differs enough from the traditional direction of such threads that it is not merely superfluous.)

Apparently, the success and the prominence of the marriage movement has fooled many people into believing that the "intermediate" step of civil unions has already been achieved in this country. This impression is quite inaccurate.

Nine states have civil unions or domestic partnerships, counting DC. Six have same-sex marriage (Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts). One additional one (Maryland) offers some legal rights in the context of unregistered cohabitation. That's sixteen, out of fifty-one (again counting DC), or only about 31.4%.

Of the nine states + DC that offer some measure of legal rights but not marriage, not all actually offer substantially equivalent legal rights. Many do, but Colorado, Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Maryland do not. Taking only the states that offer more or less equivalent legal rights, we have only twelve, or 23.5%, less than a quarter of US states. (I'm ignoring the fact that there are some reports that, in practice, even legal arrangements that are supposed to be equivalent to marriage don't actually hold up as such.)

Both of these counts omit the fact that not all of these gains are secure. Maine's same-sex marriage legislation is up for a vote in November; so is the latest, and most comprehensive version of Washington's domestic partnership legislation. There is a legal challenge in Wisconsin toward its domestic partnership law, on the grounds that the state's same-sex marriage ban, which prohibits legal arrangements resembling marriage, blocks granting any substantive measure of legal rights to same-sex couples.

All of this discussion ignores the fact that even in the states with full marriage equality, none of the federal rights and benefits of marriage are granted to same-sex couples, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Some of the more moderate opponents of the marriage equality movement like posturing about how they have no problem with equal rights, but are troubled by the interference with the sanctity of "traditional marriage." All right: then they should walk the walk as well as talk the talk. If you think there are political gains to be had in not insisting on the word "marriage"... well, prove it. Help us approve Washington's Referendum 71. Support the DOMA repeal effort, and efforts in your state to provide comprehensive civil union or domestic partnership legislation. If a constitutional amendment like Florida's Amendment 2 comes to a vote in your state, barring not only same-sex marriage but any legal arrangement similar to marriage also, actually know what the text is beforehand--and vote against it.

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans support civil unions. Where are you?

[Yootopia]

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans support civil unions. Where are you?

You sure that 'support' isn't just "are basically apathetic about"?

[Tekania]

"Civil Union" is an equal protections issue... Opponents to same-sex unions know that by implementing a "civil union" for such partnerships, while maintaining "marriage" for heterosexual partnerships that they can then discriminate (given they are two separate legal institutions)...

That's the only reason they want the separation... So it appears they are making a "fair compromise", while really being the same discriminatory bastards they've always been.

Separate is not only not equal... Separate is NEVER equal... Because the only reason you would WANT something separate is so it can be MADE unequal within our law...

[Soheran]

You sure that 'support' isn't just "are basically apathetic about"?

Plainly, that's exactly what it means--and, further, a kind of support that may be quite vulnerable to challenge from homophobic political campaigns.

The point is that you can't posture as a supporter of equal rights if you aren't actually willing to support equal rights... even if it's in ways as minimal as voting for or against a ballot measure. If a person's version of "support" is "support until it actually comes up as an issue"... well, there's some gain to be had in just making them more honest, if nothing else.

[Yootopia]

You sure that 'support' isn't just "are basically apathetic about"?

Plainly, that's exactly what it means--and, further, a kind of support that may be quite vulnerable to challenge from homophobic political campaigns.

The point is that you can't posture as a supporter of equal rights if you aren't actually willing to support equal rights.

Quite. In the genius words of George W. Bush, "if you don't stand for anything then you don't stand for anything".

[Tunizcha]

I support civil unions as a replacement of marriage, and leave the marriages to the religious sector.

[Tekania]

I support civil unions as a replacement of marriage, and leave the marriages to the religious sector.

I don't, simply because it's a semantics issue, and I consider it a waste of time and resources... I also do not think it would work, given that in my experience most people talking about "Civil Union" talk about it the sense of a SEPARATE civil institution from marriage... Their ultimate goal is discrimination between the two...

[Soheran]

*snip*

I agree. But this is not the point.

I'm tired of hearing same-sex marriage opponents talk endlessly about they don't object to equal rights, but only to the "redefinition of marriage"... and to then have the debate revolve only around that. It would make sense if we had equal rights and benefits already. But we don't.

[Muravyets]

I used to be apathetic about it, until I realized that the factions that oppose gay marriage are really eager for civil unions precisely so they can discriminate against them, reserving a more preferential social status to "marriage." You can see this if you take a long, broad view of the rhetoric and arguments of the opposition side on the gay marriage debate.

So because "civil unions" -- regardless of what they could potentially be in law -- are being set up as a tool of discrimination, I reject them and insist that gay people's right to marry be recognized.

[Cabra West]

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans support civil unions. Where are you?

In Ireland.
And the Dail is discussing legislation, the government has commited itself to pass legislation establishing civil unions before the end of this year (let's see if they meet that deadline).
Polls show an approval of around 80% of the population, and even the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland have apparently voiced approval as long as they get to keep the word "marriage" for the religious (that last bit was actually news to me, but there you go...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland#Public_debate

[Soheran]

So because "civil unions" -- regardless of what they could potentially be in law -- are being set up as a tool of discrimination, I reject them and insist that gay people's right to marry be recognized.

Again, I agree.

But whatever the reasons to reject marriage-analogous civil unions as the best or ultimate manifestation of equality, the fact remains that (a) we don't have them, (b) having them would represent a significant improvement, and (c) so many of our opponents posture as supporters of equal rights... yet always seem to fail to actually stand up for them when the issue comes up even outside of the scope of the "marriage" term.

I'm tired of having the debate defined by whether or not equality necessitates marriage. Equality definitely necessitates equality in rights and benefits. What are we waiting for?

[Tekania]

I'm tired of hearing same-sex marriage opponents talk endlessly about they don't object to equal rights, but only to the "redefinition of marriage"...

I think you're missing the point that that is merely a veil for their desired goal of continued discrimination... If you think that would end up being a compromising position and gather their support, you're going to be very disappointed... It's about institutionalized discrimination... And as long as "the gayz" is being given equal rights they'll oppose it... Their reasonings will just change...

I always find it best merely to back them into the corner, so they always appear to be the snarling monsters they are... As that is what tends to reduce their credibility over time...

EDIT: Perhaps you should look in the other thread... KMA wants civil unions as long as he can deny equal rights to religions which differ from his from calling their religious ceremonies "marriages"... Their ultimate goal is civil inequality...

[The_pantless_hero]

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans support civil unions. Where are you?

Didn't we already go through a court case where it was concluded that "separate is inherently not equal."

[Soheran]

In Ireland.

Perhaps I should apologize for the US-centrism, too.

And the Dail is discussing legislation, the government has commited itself to pass legislation establishing civil unions before the end of this year (let's see if they meet that deadline).

Civil unions seem rather more politically potent in Europe, as an alternative. The US is a strange case because we have both a marriage equality vanguard and a profound failure, overall, to achieve even legal equality outside of marriage. This is probably connected to federalism--that, and the regional concentrations of religious fundamentalists we have to deal with...

[Muravyets]

So because "civil unions" -- regardless of what they could potentially be in law -- are being set up as a tool of discrimination, I reject them and insist that gay people's right to marry be recognized.

Again, I agree.

But whatever the reasons to reject marriage-analogous civil unions as the best or ultimate manifestation of equality, the fact remains that (a) we don't have them, (b) having them would represent a significant improvement, and (c) so many of our opponents posture as supporters of equal rights... yet always seem to fail to actually stand up for them when the issue comes up even outside of the scope of the "marriage" term.

I'm tired of having the debate defined by whether or not equality necessitates marriage. Equality definitely necessitates equality in rights and benefits. What are we waiting for?

It's like the "incrementalism" that opponents of health care reform offer up as a "compromise" -- in practical reality, saying "we're doing it in increments" is just a euphemism for "we're not doing it."

So, too, saying we're recognizing gays' equal rights by sneaking in the side door of semantic fig-leaf games of "civil unions", etc., is just another way of NOT recognizing that gays are equal to hetero citizens. It just keeps them separate. It just continues to give a governmental imprimatur to the rhetoric of those people who wish to discriminate against gays privately (employers, social groups, etc) and who wish to continue to treat some people as preferred over others.

It is a labeling system that enables segregation and the social isolation of a minority.

[Soheran]

So, too, saying we're recognizing gays' equal rights by sneaking in the side door of semantic fig-leaf games of "civil unions", etc., is just another way of NOT recognizing that gays are equal to hetero citizens.

This may very well be. But concretization of equality is just one--very important--goal. The particular rights and benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples are themselves important as well: hospital visitation, inheritance rights, immigration rights, adoption rights, in a legal framework that is secure and accessible--these are not things to sneeze at, or to disregard as meaningless.

If our opponents do not seriously mean that same-sex couples should have these things, then we should call their bluff. And if they do think that these are important rights that should be available to all couples, then it's past time they joined us in getting them enacted.

[Cabra West]

In Ireland.

Perhaps I should apologize for the US-centrism, too.

Ah, not to worry.
In a way, I threadjacked this, since your thread is in fact about the US and not the rest of the world

Civil unions seem rather more politically potent in Europe, as an alternative. The US is a strange case because we have both a marriage equality vanguard and a profound failure, overall, to achieve even legal equality outside of marriage. This is probably connected to federalism--that, and the regional concentrations of religious fundamentalists we have to deal with...

Some countries here only actually recognise what you might call civil unions, that is marriages that were performed by government officials.
In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised. Mind you, those marriages are still called marriages, though. I sometimes think it's a language thing as much as anything, really, since there's no term for civil union in German, hence no debate.

[Soheran]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

Mind you, those marriages are still called marriages, though. I sometimes think it's a language thing as much as anything, really, since there's no term for civil union in German, hence no debate.

The causal relation works in the other direction, I think. There was no term for "civil union" in English until this debate, either.

[Muravyets]

So, too, saying we're recognizing gays' equal rights by sneaking in the side door of semantic fig-leaf games of "civil unions", etc., is just another way of NOT recognizing that gays are equal to hetero citizens.

This may very well be. But concretization of equality is just one--very important--goal. The particular rights and benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples are themselves important as well: hospital visitation, inheritance rights, immigration rights, adoption rights, in a legal framework that is secure and accessible--these are not things to sneeze at, or to disregard as meaningless.

If our opponents do not seriously mean that same-sex couples should have these things, then we should call their bluff. And if they do think that these are important rights that should be available to all couples, then it's past time they joined us in getting them enacted.

Well, come on, seriously, what do you really think will happen if that bluff is called?

But aside from that, history shows that all the major advancements in civil rights in the US, and arguably elsewhere in the world, have come as a result of dramatic action to push through sweeping changes. The increments come later, in adjusting and refining legislation and social systems to implement the changes more effectively and to adapt to changing circumstances over time. But increments and sneaky word games were not what ended slavery, or reformed immigration multiple times, or got women the vote, or ended racial segregation, etc., even though on every single one of those issues, there were those arguing for the kind of approach you are talking about.

I have no interest in backing a horse that has lost every race it ever ran.

[Muravyets]

Some countries here only actually recognise what you might call civil unions, that is marriages that were performed by government officials.
In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised. Mind you, those marriages are still called marriages, though. I sometimes think it's a language thing as much as anything, really, since there's no term for civil union in German, hence no debate.

That is actually similar to the system in the US, too, although the anti-gay-marriage debaters would like us to forget it. But even here, you are not legally married, and cannot get the over 1000 rights, benefits and privileges that come with marriage, unless you have the proper documentation issued by the state in which you got married. Although American anti-gay-marriage activists try very hard to cast marriage as a religious issue (ignoring the religions that sanctify gay marriages), the fact is marriage is and always has been a civil institution.

So I very much support the US taking the same attitude that Germany has, because it would be little more than an official confirmation of what we already do and intend to keep doing.

But in the US, the real debate is not about marriage itself. It's about who gets to claim the perceived privileged position in society that is granted to married couples. As Soheran pointed out, we had no word for "civil unions" either, until this controversy started. It is my contention that those who argue that gays should be given civil unions, while their group (whatever it is) should keep the word "marriage" for themselves, are merely arguing in favor of not treating gays as the same as and equal to themselves.

[Cabra West]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?
In Germany, you can't just get a license to preform marriages, it needs to be done by a full-time state official. And last thing I know, it has to happen in the registry office, it cannot be anywhere else. So most couples will have the civil ceremony first, and then a couple of days or weeks (sometimes years) later the church ceremony. I think this has led to a clear separation in people's minds between the legal marriage, and the religious aspect of it. And I also think that this may be why there is relatively few opposition to include same-sex marriages on the civil/legal side of it.

That's just plain guessing, though, and doesn't really have all that much to do with the original topic. So I'll stop it here.

[Farnhamia]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?
In Germany, you can't just get a license to preform marriages, it needs to be done by a full-time state official. And last thing I know, it has to happen in the registry office, it cannot be anywhere else. So most couples will have the civil ceremony first, and then a couple of days or weeks (sometimes years) later the church ceremony. I think this has led to a clear separation in people's minds between the legal marriage, and the religious aspect of it. And I also think that this may be why there is relatively few opposition to include same-sex marriages on the civil/legal side of it.

That's just plain guessing, though, and doesn't really have all that much to do with the original topic. So I'll stop it here.

You still need a state-issued marriage license. The state has to have some paperwork to know you are married, so when you file your taxes they'll know you aren't just making it up.

[Xsyne]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?

No, you still have to sign a thing from the government before you're legally married. I think, and I may be wrong, that priests are authorized to give you the papers to sign. But again, I may be, and probably am, wrong.

[Cabra West]

You still need a state-issued marriage license. The state has to have some paperwork to know you are married, so when you file your taxes they'll know you aren't just making it up.

I know... but in Germany it's not just plain paperwork. You have to show up, both of you, with witnesses, it's quite a little ceremony.
In Ireland, as far as I know, you can get married by a priest, who will then issue you with a legal paper. All you need to do to get the marriage legally registered is send it in to the registry office. Is that similar to the US?
I think the fact that there HAS to be this very official, ceremonial signing of papers in front of a government official in Germany has helped establish marriage as a state institution in people's minds...

[Farnhamia]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?

No, you still have to sign a thing from the government before you're legally married. I think, and I may be wrong, that priests are authorized to give you the papers to sign. But again, I may be, and probably am, wrong.

I'm pretty sure you have to go down to the county Clerk's office - or whatever office it is - and get the license yourself. You probably have to show an ID to prove you're old enough and all that.