Civil Unions Revisted

Since Vermont legalized civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, the battle between legalizing same-sex civil unions vs. same-sex marriage vs. neither has been raging. If you had awoken from a coma a week or two before the 2004 presidential election, you most likely would have thought the World Trade Center had collapsed under the weight of too many gay marriages. Well, I guess that's fair, since we're a threat to national security.

In the past decade, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as "one man and one woman" and an additional 19 have laws defining marriage as "one man and one woman." Many states that have recently passed constitutional amendments had previous laws that banned same-sex marriages, yet pursued the amendments regardless. Of the 45 states that make it illegal marry a same-sex partner, 17 states' laws extend to other legally defined relationships, such as civil unions, common-law marriages and domestic partnerships. This, consequently, affects opposite-sex couples who use these terms to define their relationship as well.

On the other hand, poll data shows that the support for legally recognized civil unions between same-sex couples is on the rise. In looking at the positions held by most major Democratic politicians today, many support offering same-sex civil unions, but very few support same-sex marriages. The blanket response has been something along the lines of,

"We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government,
those should be equal."

Okay, so maybe "along the lines of" isn't quite right, since that is a direct quote from Barack Obama taken from the 2007 CNN/Youtube Debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Basically, most Democratic politicians want to create a separate but equal "institution." Countless times, I have heard people chastise the gay community for being "greedy" and not accepting the "gift" of civil unions. The argument is that if it's the rights that we want, then civil unions should suffice, right?

Not quite. It appears that the flawed "gift" of civil unions is finally being exposed. It seems that Connecticut is following in the footsteps of New Jersey and California as the latest state to re-examine their state's policies on same-sex unions and whether or not they are sufficient. Though current Connecticut law "guarantees" couples in civil unions the same benefits and rights as married couples, there have been many misunderstandings, and the status of these relationships is apparently too confusing for health care workers and government employees, making the receipt of these benefits a huge hassle for many couples. Senator Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) is co-chair of the bill that is in front of the state's legislature now. Said to be intended to "clean up" issues that these same-sex couples face, such as being considered next of kin and how to recognize same-sex couples that are legally married in Massachusetts. The legislation comes on the heals of a hearing in front of the Connecticut Supreme Court which will determine whether denying same-sex couples a marriage license in the state is unconstitutional. With decisions due to come from the high courts of both Connecticut and California in the near future, it appears as though the scope of this debate is going to change--it is only the direction of the change that is still unknown.