The line often used these days by wary politicians is "I don't
support gay marriage, but I do support their right to have civil
unions". I suppose, that by itself, demonstrates progress. As
recently as eight or ten years ago, one wouldn't have heard even this
level of concession. But the statement, in and of itself, is an
admission there are differences between marriages and civil unions.
This came from the Boston Globe the other day:
Once
again the unnecessary furor over gay marriage has been reopened by
President-elect Obama's pick of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural
invocation. Once again we hear the old mantra that gay marriage is "an
attack on the sacred institution of marriage" So once again I have to
ask, if marriage is a "sacred," that is, religious institution, why in
the name of the Constitution is the government in the marriage business
at all? Why can't the government, state or federal, simply legalize
civil unions for all people, gay or straight, and let those who want
"holy matrimony" attached to their union go to the church of their
choice and have it done? There are enough liberal churches around to
accommodate all. Then churches would keep their freedom from government
intervention and we would all be equal in the eyes of the state. Why
has this idea not been seriously considered?
Certainly sounds reasonable, though I suppose it doesn't really address the concerns of religious conservatives who argue allowing same sex couples marriage rights, even if removed from state sanction, somehow dilutes what they consider the historical "purity" of marriage. It's true that lots of folks are married without any religious sanction of their union - a visit to a country clerk or justice of the peace is as good in the states eyes as a big fancy wedding in a church. But the idea of allowing civil marriages for same sex couples, as opposed to a religious marriage, is not what's being proposed by those wary politicians.
So, what's the difference between a marriage and a civil union?
First, civil unions only exist in a handful of states, unlike marriages which obviously exist in all fifty. A marriage conducted in one state is recognized by all of the other forty nine. Civil unions are recognized only in the state that allowed it.
According to a 1997 Government Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it 1,049 protections and responsibilities unavailable to civil unions. These include the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits, Couples having a civil union, because they are unrecognized by the federal government, are unable to file joint tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks provided to married couples. They often lack the option of receiving discounts on insurance rates and, in some cases, haven't the option to visit their spouse in a hospital or make emergency medical decisions if their partner is unable.
There are probably some same sex couples who would love to have a religious marriage. (It sure doesn't make a lot of sense that a government that claims it's separate from religion would be so invested in this whole argument, and it sure doesn't say much about a religion that would deliberately exclude a bunch of folks who enthusiastically want to participate in its rituals). But for many gay couples, I would reckon giving civil unions the same rights and privledges as civil marriages would be considered a great step forward.
But until that happens, civil unions are just another form of discrimination.
Comments