civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same sex marriage?

what if a government (U.S. federal or state) instituted a civil union or domestic partnership law that allowed for legal recognition of same sex couples and provided for all of the same benefits as marriage, but marriage was still recognized by its traditional definition, the union of one man and one woman. Would same sex couples still be protesting that they aren't allowed to marry?

Seems that way to me, just look at Vermont. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_...

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    great question,

    Vermont and most of the answers above seem to indicate that equal privileges would not suffice to satisfy the homosexual community.

    Unfortunately same sex couples tend to cry discrimination or differential treatment when they actually have the same rights as heterosexual couples. DOMA treats men and women the same, both have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. I suspect that the real goal is not equality (if it were equal priviledges would appease them regardless of what the institution was called) but rather to redefine the traditional definition of marriage.

    Marriage by definition can be entered into by anyone who meets the requirements for the institution. those requirements are four, and began with man's inception. 1. A person can be married to one other person at a time 2. A person must be of the proper age to marry 3. A person must not be related to the person they are marrying 4. A person can only marry a person of the opposite sex.

    Marriage is an institution that has requirements to enter into, just like other institutions like the President of the United States, where you must be at least 35 and a natural born citizen.

    Unlike one of the answers, the government does have a legitimate interest in being involved in marriage. 1. traditional marriage will more likely than not lead to children, which widens the tax base for the government, thus government can incentivize heterosexual marriage for procreation purposes. (although the same sex counter argument is that same sex couples can adopt or procreate through donors. However, the government may legitimately create the institution of opposite-sex marriage, and all the benefits accruing to it, in order to encourage male-female couples to procreate within the legitimacy and stability of a state-sanctioned relationship and to discourage unplanned, out-of-wedlock births resulting from "casual" intercourse. Even where an opposite-sex couple enters into a marriage with no intention of having children, "accidents" do happen, or persons often change their minds about wanting to have children. The institution of marriage not only encourages opposite-sex couples to form a relatively stable environment for the "natural" procreation of children in the first place, but it also encourages them to stay together and raise a child or children together if there is a "change in plans."

    While becoming a parent by using "artificial" reproduction methods, as same sex couples must do, is frequently costly and time-consuming. Adopting children is much the same. Those persons wanting to have children by assisted reproduction or adoption are, by necessity, heavily invested, financially and emotionally, in those processes. Those processes also require a great deal of foresight and planning. "Natural" procreation, on the other hand, may occur only between opposite-sex couples and with no foresight or planning. All that is required is one instance of sexual intercourse with a man for a woman to become pregnant. Thus the government have a legitimate interest in promoting opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage.

    Finally, laws such as DOMA are constitutional because the government has a rational basis/ legitimate state interest for opposite sex marriage as demonstrated above. This is all the government need demonstrate because there is no basis for a higher level of judicial scrutiny. Here's why 1. DOMA does not treat males and females differently (they both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender), thus there is no distinction based on sex, and 2. Homosexuals are not a suspect class, due to the fact that a) homosexuality is not immutable (see Anderson v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006).) and b.) they are not a politically powerless group (as evidenced by the states that allow same sex marriage).

  • Civil union/Domestic partner gives SOME, not all, & not the same, rights that straight married couples have automatically. Marriage is a state issue. A person wanting to get married has to abide by the state's regulations to do so, not a religion. So, even if a couple gets married in a church without doing the proper paperwork for the state, they are married in their hearts & in the eyes of their Creator. But not married by the state of CA, nor the federal government.

    Even if we did have civil partnerships, our federal government only recognizes not only marriage, but marriage as a man & a woman, thanks to DOMA. So, the 1130+ federal benefits of marriage that are automatically bestowed on a striaght married couple just by having a legal marriage license (per the state they reside in) are denied to LGBT who have the EXACT same license or ANY recognition from the state the couple lives in. How fair is that?

    In this country, we've had numerous court cases where separate but equal laws were neither separate NOR equal to the original law. You would think, that after the hell this country did to it's own citizens based on race, skin color, gender, disability, or veteran status, that it would learn from previous mistakes.

    But I guess that's NOT the case.

    Let the fed honor ALL marriages that the state has declared legal, period. That way, the feds aren't trumping over state rights, since the feds delegated laws about marriage to each individual state. So, if the state recognize those marriage (regardless of the sex of the couple) then the feds would have to honor those state unions. But they feds don't, & that is discriminatory.

    I personally wouldn't mind if the feds called the marriage to my wife as crap on a shingle, jsut as long as we could get THE EXACT SAME BENEFITS that straight married couples receive AUTOMATICALLY. Like having my wife be my dependent & eligible for burial with me at any national or state veterans cemetery, not having to pay inheritence tax on our joint property should I die first, hospital visitation, getting that $3000 IRS joint tax refund that could've come in handy, especially as my wife is still looking for steady employment since her layoff as a teacher back in Jan 2009.

    But as things are set up right now, that's just not going to happen.

    As long as civil unions/domestic partnerships/ same sex marriages are not treated the same as "traditional" marriage, nor recognized by the feds, AND state sanctioned gay marriages are not given the same benefits as state sanctioned straight marriages, LGBTs will continue to fight for marriage equality.

    So, we fight on. Look at the entire situation instead of your narrow POV. We want to be treated the same as any other married couple. Is that too much to ask from my country?

    Source(s): Livin Life Married for 10mos to saint of a wife Difference between Civil Union & Marriage: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil%E2%80%A6 DOMA lawsuit case: http://www.stephenhyland.com/2009/03/dom%E2%80%A6 Marriage Fairness (includes GAO report listing 1100+ federal benefits) http://www.marriagefairness.org/ 12yr Army Vet
  • 1 decade ago

    Civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have the same benefits. If they did, I don't see why anyone would be complaining.

    Source(s): Happy to educate you ^^ *nuzzles*
  • 1 decade ago

    Okay, now tell me why the government should set up some mechanism to reward people who want to be in some relationship with each other.

    Why in the world is the government to become involved with people's personal relationships?

    Is the government then to define a civil union? Why not a civil union between father and son, mother and son, three people, thirty people? It's ludicrous that the government should get into the civil union business or the marriage business either.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    It would be cool to have America cool with this. We all must agree on a life of love. Anyone who is mean or unfair sould be not accepted. Let each person or persons make a choice. If an adult wants to make a decision like this let them. Long as the kids are not a factor. Everyone has the desire to do something that is unexpected rather they say it or not.

  • 1 decade ago

    The federal government doesn't recognise same-sex marriage, so there are 1500+ benefits, that same-sex couples cannot get. Separate, but equal is *not* equal.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I want to get married. My whole family always planned on me getting married. COME ON if transgendered people can get married why not gays?

    In your weirdo opinion isn't that worse? Yet, it's LEGAL hmmmmm no should I get a sex change just so i can go ahahahhahahahaha I am MARRIED

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

    Separate-but-equal institutions do not qualify, and have already been ruled unconstitutional.

  • 1 decade ago

    Separate isn't equal.

  • 1 decade ago

    separate but equal is NOT equal.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.