Gay Marriage or Civil Unions?
What is the difference?
- Lev8mysoulLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
The difference is that gay marriage, like traditional marriage, gives the spouses rights that all married couples have. For example, if one of them ends up in the hospital, it gives the other one the right to decide on treatment if the injured or ill spouse cannot. The spouse is able to receive retirement benefits, and all the other rights and so on that married couples receive. One can carry the medical insurance for both, etc. Civil unions, though there are areas that do recognize them, usually do not give the full rights that marriage does. That is the main argument that most gay marriage advocates give as well.
- LevoneLv 41 decade ago
I'm not crazy about the idea myself, but even the Episcopal church has a different Rite-I don't know the exact name for it, but "civil union" sounds right. It was instituted as a "trial marriage" for those opposite-sex couples who wanted too live together for a definite time, usually a year, then decide if they wanted to get married. It was later expanded to include gay couples. neither is considered as permanent as marriage; the opposite sex version requires the use of birth control.
I don't like he idea of a Christian Church blessing such unions, but, since the state can't stop people from living together, as long as they are consenting adults, the only harm I see in such civil unions is more red tape! Oh, the Founding Fathers were pretty much divided between Christians and Deists-who believed in a God, who created the world, but did little to interfere in its operation. However, certain unwritten "natural laws" were established, humans were expected to abide by them, and, if they believed in an afterlife (not all Deists did), they would be judged by them at the end of their lives. Paine ,ad Jefferson both wrote books that were clearly Deist,
- 1 decade ago
There really isn't. The debate is over the definition of "marriage". Some claim (for no apparent reason) that marriage MUST be between a man and a woman. Normally this stems from some religious belief - I don't know of any Biblical reference that demands this definition of marriage. Perhaps it's derived from the prohibition against homosexuality. And who knows why they care since marriage is supposed to dissolve after death anyway. It's homophobia that's trying to justify itself by a semantic argument.
Civil Unions are devised by those who are trying to compromise between homosexuals who wish to enter into a recognized relationship and others who insist that they can't call that marriage.
The biggest reason that any of this matters is for the civil benefits of "marriage" tax credits and the like. Why should two homosexuals who are committed to each other and have intertwined their lifes not get the same civil benefits as a male and female who are married, but cheat on each other, and argue and fight all the time? Hence the compromise to Civil Unions.
Why homosexuals and the opponents of their union care that it's called marriage, is completely beyond me. It's a stupid argument either way. Frankly a committed relationship has nothing to do with what you call it. And any ceremony designed to celebrate and solidify that relationship will ritualistically have that desired effect.
And I go back to this being a useless semantic argument, stemming from a homophobic belief and only hinging on the benefits the state will grant and the relationships the state will recognize.
A terribly waste of time if you ask me - I truly believe that all men (humans) are created equal, and hence entitled to the same benefits, if entitled to benefits at all.
- 1 decade ago
Well, considering that "marriage" is a religious ceremony and really has nothing to do with legal procedure, that is the difference.
A "civil union" is basically a marriage that is performed legally and absent of any religious affiliation.
That is the difference. As for if one should be legal or not, it is my personal view that a legal adult should be able to have a union with another legal adult of their choosing - whether it be with the same or opposite sex.
Religions have the right to dictate who qualifies for their marriage ceremonies. But the government doesn't have the right to dictate who can be involved in a union - since only religious arguments can be used to state that homosexuality is "bad".
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Valєηtiηa ☆Lv 61 decade ago
I agree with Guru above me. If two people love each other, I don't see any valid reason to preclude them from having rights that other individuals enjoy because of their sex. It is a form of discrimination that should be eliminated, we are in the 21st century!!! I have gay friends, they have been together through thick and thin for 22 years. It's a long time to be with someone, especially when facing injustices and scorn by individuals as well as government. A gay man I know from my previous employment lost his companion to cancer. The last day of his companion's life, he was not allowed in the hospital room where he lay unconscious, because legally, they had no institutionalized "familial ties". His companion died alone, while he sat in the waiting room for hours.
I am sorry, but I just don't think that this should be allowed.
Allow them to marry.
- poopLv 61 decade ago
Pilgrim: "We live in a nation founded upon the principle that individuals have God-given rights."
And where, exactly, in the constitution did you find this? We don't live in a theocracy, last time I checked.
To the questioner: rights are virtually equal, but half the religious right don't want their unions to be called "marriage" because they see it as an attack on their religion. The other half don't want gays to have either, and, if given the option, would probably have all of them exterminated in concentration camps.
- 1 decade ago
marrige is in a court house or church allowing a change in name, and whatever goes a long with that. not that much of a difference. personally to me it looks like a religious difference more than anything.
i could be completly wrong thats just what i heard. dont really care
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They should both be illegal.
We live in a nation founded upon the principle that individuals have God-given rights.
God-given rights are derived from the commands of God.
God commands men not to have sex with men. This establishes a right to a culture and society free of sodomites, sodomy, sodomite marriages and "civil unions" for sodomites and female homosexuals.
If they don't like it, they can vote with their feet and move to Haiti or any number of other countries who accept those who reject God and his commands.