Confused about the difference between gay marriage and civil union

[latebloomer]

I just googled this, but am still confused.

How is the law that New York just passed any better than civil unions?

The way I figure it, until the federal government allows married gays to have survivorship Social Security benefits, file joint tax returns , etc., then they are still short quite a few of the benefits of marriage.

Are there benefits currently to marriage vs. civil union?

[originalpckelly]

1. Instead of being segregated into a different institution, we will be included in society.

Coming up with a different word for the same exact thing is a discriminatory practice that allows bigots to demean the love LGBT folks feel for one another. It's a continuation of the torment so many of us feel when we are younger, and we hope to get away from when we become adults, only to find out that when we do, we still can get married. No, we would get civil-unioned. Alienation v. inclusion. That's the difference.

Does that answer it?

[RKP5637]

4. I think MA was investigating pushing for survivorship Social Security. I don't

know where that stands, haven't looked yet, but it seems I heard something about that back a few months.

[RKP5637]

2. Good question! What I really want too is survivorship Social Security

benefits. IMO that should be a given if married. I guess that's the next major hurdle. IMO it's only fair!

[Unvanguard]

3. The answer you ask for is both simple and complicated.

The simple, and absolutely true, answer is that civil unions, because they are a separate artificial institution created specifically to justify the continued denial of marriage equality to same-sex couples, and are without the social significance or recognition of marriage, are inferior and unacceptable as an alternative even if they grant completely equal rights.

The more complicated answer pertains to the legal benefits themselves. "Civil unions" proper in states like New Jersey and Illinois offer, on paper, all the state rights and benefits of marriage. (Domestic partnerships, like California's, that have been gradually expanded to be more or less marriage equivalents legally nonetheless generally retain some legacy elements of their origin: for instance, in California, I believe two people have to cohabitate before they can get a domestic partnership, while obviously this isn't true for marriage, and also isn't true for civil unions.) There are two catches, however. First, when DOMA is repealed, it is unlikely that there will any federal recognition for civil unions, so people with actual marriages will get federal benefits and people without won't. Second, what rights people have on paper, and what rights people actually have in practice, are different things. There are many reports of people with civil unions being denied rights they were legally entitled to; civil unions (and domestic partnerships) are less recognizable and harder for people to understand than marriages, so they don't bring about the kind of reliability and security that a marriage does.

[johnnypneumatic]

11. excellent answer

thanks Unvanguard

[joshcryer]

5. Spousal privileges go deep. Taxes, benefits, immigration, and others.

See the examples where hospitals wouldn't allow unioned couples to see one another. "Family only."

Here's a more thorough examples: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

[tabbycat31]

6. a good website

http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/

[latebloomer]

7. Thank you!

Knew I could rely on the smart folks of DU. You answered what Google could not.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Marriage is portable, civil union is not.

Expect to see a LOT of couples go to NY to get wed, then come back to their states to be test cases. In the states with a constitutional prohibition, judges all the way up to state supreme courts may have their hands tied, but in the places where it's only banned by statute, they may have a shot.

It's time to get Mr. and Mrs. Right Winger used to the idea that their gay and lesbian neighbors are going to stand up for their rights. It's the only way to cause a re-visiting of the idea of homophobia in a state's constitution. I do think these bans are reversable in a handful of states, such as Oregon.

[kestrel91316]

9. Separate but equal is not ok.

[johnnypneumatic]

10. New York can now sue the US on DOMA

to get those rights, and put another "DOMA is unconstitutional" nail in it

[Unvanguard]

13. Residents of New York have already been able to sue the US on DOMA.

Because New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages (though not all the way.) There's a case: Windsor v. United States, brought by the ACLU.

[Ian David]

12. The way to fix this problem is to get the government OUT of the marriage business.

EVERYONE-- gay or straight-- should get a Civil Union from the government.

Marriage would be an option you could get through your favorite house of worship, but would have no legal weight.

[War Horse]

14. Thanks for this!

Just what I was looking for. I know waaay to little about the technicalities... need to learn.