Wojtek writes:
> So the bottom line is that this whole debate on same sex "marriages" vs. "civil unions" is mostly semantic and carried out by people for whom appearances are more important than substance. The state should guarantee same legal rights, including a right to enter a legally recognized relationship, to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. How that is union is called is matter of personal preference and semantics.
With respect, it is much more than a matter of semantics.
The civil institution of marriage carries with it many rights/privileges. A state would have to change all its laws with the word "marriage" to the term "civil union."
Another problem would be whether or not a civil union in one state would be recognized in a state that does not have civil unions. Marriage is portable; so should civil unions.
If it were simply a matter of semantics I am sure queers would be happy to push for civil unions, but the issue is deeper than that. Separate, but equal is not equal. Whatever is allowed for heterosexuals should be allowed for queers. The problem is that opponents of gay marriage want to import religious ideas into a civil union/contract. This is the battleground. They do not view secular marriage as secular LOL. Civil unions legitimize the notions that queers are second-class citizens less deserving of equal status.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister