Marriage vs Civil Union (not the question you'd think)

Without bringing gender into it, what is the difference between what a marriage is, and what a civil union is?

Everyone trys to bring their political views into this, but this isn't a question on whether gays should or shouldn't be allowed to get married (though my opinion is in favor of). I'm just looking for what is the difference between the two?

---

There are over 1,400 rights and benefits conferred on marriages that the House Judiciary Committee and the GAO enumerated. These rights are protected as the married couple travels from state to state.

Civil unions, which exist only in 4 states, vary by definition from state to state. Moreover, one state is in no way obligated to honor the terms of another state's definition of civil union. Under DOMA, other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them at all.

These are some of the legal rights a civil union would NOT necessarily confer on a gay couple:

===

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.


Legal and economic benefits of marriage

---

Updated On: 6/1/09 at 05:21 PM

Did you sign a Marriage License or a Civil Union License? With or without the Church ceremony you still would have been MARRIED.

---

Updated On: 6/1/09 at 07:27 PM

It doesn't make a difference what YOU consider to be a marriage or what you think makes you married. Because you don't endow other people with the rights and privileges that the government automatically bestows on people who are legally married. You get to think like that, but the government shouldn't. The government is not in the business of licensing religious marriages, just civil ones.

I'm sure that there are and will be Churches who will never consider a legal same sex marriage, a "marriage". And frankly I couldn't care less. My concern is not with any church, my concern is with the government to whom I pay taxes and who's laws I abide by. It disgusts me that a felon in prison can get married behind bars, and I, a law abiding tax paying citizen can't.

You can say you wouldn't consider yourself married without the Church ceremony which is fine. But I guarantee you the Government wouldn't consider you married without a valid and signed marriage license,issued by the state, no matter how many times and in how many churches you said your vows.

My interest is ONLY in a legal GOVERNMENT sanctioned MARRIAGE. With all of the rights that come with it. Nothing separate and nothing UNEQUAL.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider Atheist, Hindus, Buddhist, Muslims and other non-Christians, married. Or are they only UNIONED?

---

Updated On: 6/1/09 at 08:58 PM

I thank you all for responding---I have a better understanding now of the difference, and appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me. I think so many people equate the word "marriage" with "religion", and nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason I asked this is that there are two legislators on opposite sides of this issue in my state (pushing for legislation) and talk radio has been full of for/against discussions.

---

I have a question and I'm seriously curious (not being flip).

IF Civil Unions provided all of those rights, would you be satisfied with that? Or is it the actual marraige?

Just curious. For the record I'm totally pro-same sex marraige.

---

How would you make that happen, Stockard?

From what I've read and for the reasons I've described above, it seems to be impossible legally.

---

I have always agreed with Camille Paglia's ideas on this topic:

"I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more
philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of
foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented
past. My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book,
"Vamps & Tramps") that government should get out of the marriage business.
Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by
churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil
unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights
and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be
urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement."

---

PJ, you hit the legal definition beautifully and succinctly; I just stated my beliefs. My marriage is not defined by law, it's defined by my faith, but protected by law. I think you and PJ's pal should be entitled to all the legal equalities & protections that I and my husband have. As long as "marriage" is the label we're fighting for, it's a losing battle due to the eons-old association with religion. Rebrand for a winning strategy; per Phyllis & Taz, marriage licenses should be made into civil union licenses for all. Divorce the issue from religion and the odds for success increase.

JustAGuy, your panties are in a needless knot. I agree the government should stay out of religion. I agree that all are created equal, and therefore should have equal protections and rights under the law.

Kelzama, I didn't get married in a church, but I still consider myself married. Because I have a marriage license. So in your eyes I'm not married? What about Jewish couples who get married in a Temple? I'm just asking......

Marriage licenses are done through the legal system not the church.

---

Yoy.
MY marriage is rooted in MY faith. If yours is or isn't rooted in faith, that's your choice. I don't define your marriage; you do. It's YOUR commitment to YOUR partner; I honor those commitments. If it's marriage to you, that's good enough for me.

JustAGuy, do you read responses, or just throw rehetoric framed as questions? Better check those panties again. The rebranding suggestion actually came from previous posters with whom I agreed. Read all the comments again. Maybe this time you'll get it.

Yes, actually I read all the responses. And I know where the re-branding suggestion came from, but since you concurred, I assumed that I could also address it in my response to you. Is that not allowed? So many rules...and me without a rulebook.

It's funny you accuse me of throwing rhetoric. What is it exactly that you're doing, other than throwing the rhetoric used by religious institutions and others who don't want same sex "marriage" under any circumstances? "the eons old association with religion" where have I heard that before? Or "marriage is a religious institution", gosh that's a new one. Spare me the accusations of using rhetoric, when you do it yourself.

And if the questions are too tough to answer...then by all means, just skirt around them. Since you seem to be okay with others defining what marriage is to them. Why even suggest "unions" as an alternative?

PS Panties are still knot free.

---

Updated On: 6/2/09 at 04:18 PM

Stockard--I used to say that gay marriage would never happen in my lifetime, that I would be content to have all 1400+ rights in some sort of civil union, that I was content with baby steps.

The something happened. I dunno what. Maybe Prop 8. Maybe my lesbian cousin and her lover getting married shortly before Election Day only to have their marriage invalidated by a bunch of California bigots. I went from "Baby steps are better than nothing" to "HOW DARE YOU?!?"

I got energized and politicized like I never have been since my friends were dying in the 1980s and no one seemed to care.

From sometime around Election Day on, civil unions were no longer good enough.

I want to get MARRIED.

---