I don't understand the concept of "civil unions". Supposedly they're meant as a compromise relationship that would allow gays to get the benefits of marriage without using the same name, right?
Well what's to prevent me from civilly unioning with my roommate to get free health coverage from his work and to save money on taxes? Or, for that matter, what's to keep me from unioning with a family member or a business partner for similar financial reasons? Once the financial transaction in question is completed, we could simply dissolve the union, thereby freeing ourselves to form other unions as it became advantageous.
Would civil unions convey legal spousal privilege? If so, then criminals could simply union to avoid testifying against each other. Likewise, such privilege could be used by parents unioning with their children to cover sexual abuse. The list of potential problems seems endless to me, and I don't see any clear criteria that could be used to draw a line.
It would certainly be absurd to require two people to somehow prove that they're gay before allowing them to enter a "civil union". Most states allow for minors to get married with their parents' permission, and so I see no reason to think that children would not be allowed to enter into civil unions, possibly even without parental consent. If a girl can get an abortion without parental notification, then why can't she get civilly unioned? Similarly, parents are not allowed to marry their children, but does a civil union necessarily require or expect there to be sexual activity between the two partners? If not, then there's no reason not to allow parents to union with their kids.
The complications go on and on, and any inclusions or exclusions will end up being entirely arbitrary. The well-defined structure of marriage has been the building block of civilization for all of known history; creating an institution of "civil union" would necessarily undermine that order. Proponents may or may not admit it, but I think that undermining the current social fabric is one of their main intentions.
Your list of potential problems seem more like minor excuses to me. If you want to prevent parents and children from forming civil unions, it.
You don't have to be gay to form a civil union. Ever seen the movie "Love Story"? Some het couples are unreligious, but that doesn't stop them from getting married in the law.
What's wrong with changing the current social fabric? This country's good at that. We finally corrected racial discrimination in law. Maybe it's time to realize we've been discriminating based on sexual preference as well, and correct that with civil unions (if marriage is so "sanctified", and not an option).
Not allowing some committed couples the benefits that other receive from marriage is discrimination, isn't it? Religious views of marriage should not be adopted for a country such as this one, which is not based on Christianity, but has shown that differences of opinion can still make a successful country. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean everyone else should share your opinion. Maybe in China. Not the USA.
Of course it's discrimination. Our society discriminates in all sorts of ways, as do we each individually. There's nothing wrong with discrimination. Some forms are rational and useful (such as mistrusting used car salesmen), and some are not. There is no basis for your "unfairness" argument in morality.
I think homosexuals need to make a case for civil unions that shows society at large how allowing such things would be beneficial, because I don't see it as any sort of "natural rights" issue. Your comments are not incredibly coherant, but I gather your basic argument is that it's simply unfair to allow heterosexuals to get married while not allowing homosexuals. However, the Constitution specifically does not outlaw gender discrimination (as it does racial and religious descrimination), so there's no basis for your "unfairness" argument in law.
I think that we, as a society, have an obligation to encourage and support measures that bring people together in happiness and prosperity. Marriage is a great institution.. but it needs help. High divorce rates, spousal abuse, neglect of children, etc. are all examples of what's really bringing down marriage. We should develop ways of eliminating these negative influences on marriage specifically and society in general.
Civil unions (if not gay marriage) is a way to do this in a section of the population that is often too decadent and self-absorbed.. yes, that's right... I'm a young gay man who has criticisms about certain things in the gay community.
Marriage encourages social and personal responsibility in the heterosexual world.. regardless of whether or not children are involved. Civil unions would do the same (if gay marriage is just not in the cards) for the homosexual community. It legitimizes the bond that two people have.. and gives them more than just a personal reason to see it through. I've been with my boyfriend for more than a year.. and I personally wouldn't leave him for anything or anyone. My devotion is deeper than any law or tool of government. Is my situation "the norm" among my gay peers? Absolutely not.
Generally speaking, I far prefer policies that include rather than exclude. Exclusion does two things that are immediately not beneficial to the human psyche:
1.) Isolates a person or group from the rest of society... making them feel unwanted and not as equal as everyone else.
2.) Erodes personal self-esteem.
We should always try to include people rather than exclude them. As far-fetched as it may seem, it is a goal that I think we must have. Without goals, everything else is irrelevant.
Mark: It appears that the vast majority of gays don't want monogamous relationships, they just want public validation.
That's what I was hinting at when I was talking about decadence earlier.
It's natural to assume that homosexuals, by and large, don't want monogamous relationships... but is that a conscious choice or something they've just become accustomed to?
When the vast majority of the people around you don't recognize your relationship.. monogamous or not.. how much value do you really think you're going to put on it?
Or.. I should say.. when you're raised to believe that monogamous relationships are what everyone should be in (as I was)... and then later come to realize that you're gay (as I did)... and then hear about how homosexual relationships aren't really relationships when judged against heterosexual relationships (as I heard)... how much faith are you going to have in the validity of homosexual relationships? How resigned to this conditioning are you going to be?
I went through my "wild oats" period.. as I think almost everyone does.. gay or straight. But now I'm ready for the long haul.
I do think, though, that regardless of what kind of relationship people really want.. gay or straight, monogamous or not, serious or casual.. the key is honesty and being up-front about what you want.
I've always been honest about what I'm looking for.. be it a one-night-stand.. or something more permanent. Most of the people I've been in relationships with were not so honest.. and ended up either cheating on me or breaking up with me for some B.S. reason. The details don't matter to me so much as the lack of honesty does.
.. but I digress.
Mark: I understand what you're saying, but there are deep psychological and physiological incentives for hets to be monogamous, most of which involve protecting a mother and her children. There are no such incentives for gays, so it's not a surprise that gays don't generally appear to want sexually exclusive relationships, even when they want to call them "marriage".
You may be an exception, but it sounds as if you're quite rare. Simply because of biological facts it seems unlikely that other gays will ever adopt monogamy as the standard. Monogamy is fading even among hets!
Actually, the few (too few, actually) gay couples who have children have such an incentive. It's more common for a lesbian couple to have children... but there are gay male couples with children as well.
Well what's to prevent me from civilly unioning with my roommate to get free health coverage from his work and to save money on taxes? Or, for that matter, what's to keep me from unioning with a family member or a business partner for similar financial reasons? Once the financial transaction in question is completed, we could simply dissolve the union, thereby freeing ourselves to form other unions as it became advantageous.
Couldn't you equally ask what would stop people of the opposite sex who are not romantically interested in each other doing these kinds of things using existing marriage laws?
And the best I could do would be to answer "Maybe the government might work out that the marriage was done with alterior motives (eg by spotting coincidental timing), and regard the marriage as deserving legal privelege".
Andjam: They do, but because of the gender-based binary partition of standard marriage it is far less frequent than it would be if marriage were unrestricted.