As Vermont becomes the 4th state to recognize same-sex marriage, many civil rights activists across the country (& indeed across the world) are sounding their rejoice. But the law granting same sex-marriage has some otherwise equal-rights supporters reeling, and the reason is Civil Unions. Whatever became of them? Civil Unions were originally seen as a sort of concession to the idea that marriage can still be a sacred institution of God but if you wanted to you could still have legal rights. The argument is multi-faceted, but today, we focus on simply what the legal differences are between marriage & civil union.
First there is the connotation that they are different institutions & that strait ppl are barred from civil unions. Marriages carry centuries of connotation that seems to be undesired, esp by many young liberals (such as in Vermont) who have seen marriage be corrupted by affairs, domestic violence, divorces after 2 weeks, ugly custody battles, & general long-term misery. A common phrase heard: "I want a civil union with another strait person!"
In fact, civil unions have been on the books in Vermont since 1990, a fact largely unnoticed nationally.Read the full language of the Vermont Civil Union law.
§ 1202. REQUISITES OF A VALID CIVIL UNION
For a civil union to be established in Vermont, it shall be necessary that the parties to a civil union satisfy all of the following criteria:
(1) Not be a party to another civil union or a marriage.
(2) Be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state.
(3) Meet the criteria and obligations set forth in 18 V.S.A. chapter 106.
The law expressly gives civil unions to homosexual couples- in other words, if you are heterosexual & want benefits, you must, like it or not, get married. Apparently the more egalitarian-sounding Civil Union is just as inaccessible for strait ppl as the sacred-sounding marriage still is for most gays, proving that the exclusion of individuals from such institutions cuts both ways. Therefore, whether the rights are or are not the same, these sorts of laws are like the White Drinking Fountain vs Black Drinking Fountain: A step up, but clearly not the answer.
Although not entirely fair purely by definition, it is important to know why Civil Unions are seen as an important legal definition. An extensive thrashing through constitutional documents & hearings transcripts at The Senate Website shows that as of today, there is no federal or constitutional definition of marriage, nor has the Supreme Court made any ruling on the matter. The states themselves are left to define what marriage means, &, importantly, what rights married persons receive. All states but five have constitutional amendments that define marriage, though only three states specifically prohibit gay marriage. Civil unions are, however, still allowed by these definitions (as Vermont itself is also one of the states that contained such a definition). Technically, every state can enact civil unions for homosexual OR heterosexual couples by legally granting access to the set of specific rights for those who obtain a license. Most importantly, this can be done without constitutional amendment.
Such an idea begs the question: Are separate-but-equal rights the same as equal rights? Just WHAT is in the law for a marriage (besides that it is between a man and a woman) that a civil union doesn't have?
Marketwatch ticker
