Difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage"

[iluvchicago86]

I really am confused as to what the proper definition of those two terms are.I don't know if they are the same or completely different or have some synonymous qualities. I should like to find out in order to more clearly follow debates on the subject of gay marriage. Thank you guys, very very much.

[Demobrat]

1. I think of marriage as a religious ceremony

that happens in a church. A civil union can happen at city hall, in a judge's chambers, in Las Vegas, etc. You're just as hitched legally, although your marriage might not be recognized by a church, should you give a flying ****. I could be way off base, though. Maybe it means something else entirely.

[donco6]

4. The main difference is the lack of common definition.

There is a legal understanding in all 50 states, in fact, across the globe, as to what rights are conferred to both parties who have entered into "marriage." "Civil unions" as they are being conferred upon gay couples, are rarely recognized by even the most closely related governments (cities may confer, state does not recognize, etc.)

Marriage just kinda cuts through the BS and makes everyone aware of the nature of the relationship: "Hi, I'm Don and this is my husband, Dwaine."

[ferg]

2. I think it's just a question of wording

Civil unions have the same rights as married couples, but I guess the public records wouldn't list you as married.

[Laughing Mirror]

3. Al Sharpton has a good definition

he says its like telling a black or latino that you can't get married, but you have the right to shack-up

civil union arrangements, in France for example, do not necessarily have to be between recognized gay people, but can be between any couple who want to share some of the benefits extended to married couples

but these couples don't have full rights as "married" couples do: they cannot adopt children or sponsor their partner from a foreign country to come and be with them -- rights that married heterosexuals take for granted

[Paschall]

5. In regard to the French system, that's not exactly true

Because French legal tradition doesn't recognize minorities--we are all equal citizens of the Republic--the French civil union (called the PACS) is open to all non-related adult couples, gay or straight.

Straight couples in a French civil union do have the right to adopt. Gay couples were explicitly excluded during debate on the bill, and this was one of the objectives of the last Gay Pride demonstrations in France. Actually, because of a weird glitch in French adoption law, single gays can adopt. But, as I said, gay couples cannot.

And as far as "sponsoring" a foreign partner in France, the civil union--for gays and straights alike--is just one element that is "taken into consideration" by immigration authorities. No guarantees for anyone.

The major problem with the French system, though, is that it requires couples to declare their union immediately for the purpose of various "welfare benefits," but the couple is not allowed to file a joint tax return for three years. This injustice is also slated to be fixed. And may be by Chirac's conservative government. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has promised a hate crimes law to outlaw anti-gay speech during the next legislative session.

And all of this needs to be taken in the French context, where some 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock to couples in what are called "union libres." These undeclared unions already provide public health insurance, and tenancy and other rights to the partners (though no inheritance or survivor benefits). Gays who are just "shacking up" in France are now also covered by the same rights (these legal dispositions were changed when the civil union law was passed in 1999). Which means that--without doing anything--gay couples in France already have many of the rights American couples struggling to adopt the civil union law are seeking.

[dsc]

6. It is confusing due to the state vs federal

nature of this discussion. Civil unions in Vermont gave state marriage rights to gays. Those rights include inheritance, adoption, joint Vermont taxes, survivers benefits, etc. They did nothing on the federal level or in other states. Thanks to DOMA marriage wouldn't have either.

Federally civil unions would give most to all of the rights of married couples to couples in civil unions. Thus they would be close to true equivalents.