It's not about having a hospitable environment for reproduction (though gay couples would obviously like to get married before adopting), it's about being able to have the other legal rights that straight married people do, such as hospital visitation and decision rights, health insurance, tax benefits, etc. Civil unions only offer about 1/6 of the legal rights that marriage does.
As a gay man, I don't really care what it's called, but the reason we push for "marriage" over "civil unions" is because of these legal rights. The laws are written for marriage, not civil unions.
It's also about the promise of marriage. Where in the typical marriage vows is reproduction mentioned? "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." That is what it's about...that promise. That commitment with the one you love.
Civil unions also just sound a little too "separate but equal" to me. Despite not really having a dog in this race (I have one gay couple that I'm friends with, and the one I know best is glad there's no marriage here because otherwise her partner would want to and she doesn't) I just can't be happy with civil unions. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not good enough.
Yeah you're right. What I was getting at is that they should be equal, regardless of the name. I was thinking more along the lines of what rms said his comment on here, where he thinks there shouldn't even be marriage but just be civil unions for all. I don't really care what that thing is called, marriage or civil union or some other term, as long as it's the same for gay and straight couples.
Yeah. I know people who would look at civil unions and say, "Well, at least they can't get MARRIED." It allows for discrimination, regardless of how equal the idea might be.
Thanks, that's more helpful. I can see I wasn't as informed as I should be, but none of the previous arguments seemed so convincing.
But still, does a gay relationship need all the same rights as a marriage? I don't know the details of the law, but I suspect that many of the rights civil unions do not have are in reference to providing a good environment for families.
So, I still stand by my original thesis, that the intent of marriage as an institution is primarily for reproduction, so a gay relationship doesn't require the same rights. I'll do more research to determine whether I'm right, but if you happen to have any info that can help I'd appreciate it.
Also, in response to matt and unalone's point, yes they are not equal and should not be because they are not functionall equal. Your position just begs the question when it comes to the crux of the debate. If marriage is functionally defined, then relationships that don't accomplish the same function shouldn't have the same rights and societal support. Really, how difficult is this for people to understand? Show me anything else with the same level of institutional support for something as ephemeral as "love," and I'll buy the argument that marriage is essentially about love.
As a gay man, I don't really care what it's called, but the reason we push for "marriage" over "civil unions" is because of these legal rights. The laws are written for marriage, not civil unions.
It's also about the promise of marriage. Where in the typical marriage vows is reproduction mentioned? "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." That is what it's about...that promise. That commitment with the one you love.