Would gay people be happy with civil unions if they had all the rights as marriage?

Wondering if gay people would be happy with a civil union if it ahd all the rights of marriage?





I want gay people to have all the rights of a married couple, call me crazy but I do have an issue with calling it marriage. Marriage has always meant a man and a woman, not two women or two men, so you can't really say it's the same thing because its not. If gay people can be married then you should have to let polyamorous couples marry multiple partners, its only fair.Would gay people be happy with civil unions if they had all the rights as marriage?
If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, but for religious reasons we call it something else, does that make sense?





The disgusting thing is, people honestly feel that a civil union = a marriage, so they (the opponents of gay marriage) feel that this is adequate.





Sorry Rick, I don't disagree with you often but I must in this issue. Most states do NOT have the same rights for Civil Unions and marriage. There are many rights offered to married folks that people in a civil union do not get.





Example: Here in Florida, one gay man or one gay woman can adopt, but a Gay couple under the ';bonds'; of a civil union cannot.





Example: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category.





I am not a homosexual and am not in any way biased, but that is absurd. Marriage, no matter what it used to be, is defined in the 21st century social policy of today as simply the state recognized union between two non related, human beings in love.





There is literally nothing wrong with that statement; and for the close minded lot that feel this would slippery slope into apes marrying their borthers and so forth, come off it.





If we can have over 11,000 laws regarding guns and gun ownership, I'm sure we could logically handle two gay people getting married.





People, wake up. Some really need to understand that the Bible, to some, is nothing more than a book. You need real, logical and verifiable proof if you are trying to dispel an argument using your point of view. God forbid, no pun intended, that you think outside of that leather bound book before you pass judgement so quickly.Would gay people be happy with civil unions if they had all the rights as marriage?
Marriage is a religious rite. Therefore, government should have NOTHING to do with it. The fact that the government has used the state of matrimony in deciding public policy is what has created this problem in the first place. People who want a contract and the benefits the government afford currently to ';married'; individuals should ALL be allowed to enter into such a government-sponsored union -- whatever it is called. Then, those who additionally want the sanction of religion behind their union should be able to also be married. BUT, one should NOT have to be married in order to receive the civic rights currently extended only to married people.
I think that's the same difference as when African Americans were forced to drink out of a different fountain or use different bathrooms. The argument then was, ';they're still getting water, just not out of our fountain';.





Same thing with marriage - its a state backed institution, and thus, it should not be differentiated upon just by the identity of the two people marrying. They tried this with people of mixed race and that didn't work out either as it was ultimately found to be unconstitutional.





I believe that gay people should be allowed to ';marry';, but I do not believe any Church can be forced to recognize or perform that marriage.





And your comparison to polygamy is unfair. But, I'm all for polygamous couples to get married so long as everyone is a consenting ADULT in the relationship (no child brides - children can't give informed consent).
You don't get all the same rights as a civil union. Civil unions are not recognized by other states (I think less than 10 states authorize this), can't file taxes jointly, and can't help with immigration statuses. The dissolution of these unions requires at least one partner to be a resident of the state in which the union was formed, so if both people have moved, tough ****. Plus, it requires a lawyer and thousands in legal fees to get all of the civil union stuff recognized.





There is no real argument for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples other than flat-out religious bigotry





Plus, i don't really understand the religious bigotry that goes on... All the religious folk choose to use the scripture for ';a marriage is between a man and a woman'; but they ignore other scriptures like ';Love thy neighbor';. Also, I would be able to biblically justify killing a person just because he wore ';mixed fibers';. So whatever happened to the ';free will'; that the Christians/Catholics say so much on, whatever happened to the peace and love of Christ's teachings?
polygamy and being gay isn't the dame thing at all, you should be able to marry the ONE person you love, whether your homosexual or not. you shouldn't have to define your union by Christian standards, and the only argument to saying marriage must be defined as between a man and a woman is a religious argument, otherwise it would just be a legal union of TWO people. So your polygamous argument is a fallacy, come up with another reason to be slightly bigoted.
I guess we share something mutual. I want gay people to be protected and recognized like any other married couple. I understand why some people don't want to call it ';gay marriage'; because they believe its between a man and a woman. Marriage has always been a tradition between a man and a woman and some people don't want that to get mixed up with marriage and ';gay marriage'; so they offer Civil unions as the next best thing. but there are some problems with civil unions, they don't offer as much protection as traditional marriage and not all states will recognize them. its a very slippery slope. I believe marriage is between two people who love each other no matter what gender or sexuality you and your lover are, if you are in love then that's all that matters. you don't know why you fall in love with someone and you look past all of their flaws and still want to spend the rest of your life with that person. I think in the future there will be a compromise on the issue of marriage between straight couple and gay couple. would there be a ';gay marriage'; in the future? maybe, maybe not. would civil unions offer all of the legal protection and be recognized like a traditional marriage? maybe, maybe not, who know? for now we should take this issue one step at a time and find some middle ground to work on a compromise
I think most would be happy, but some still have reservations. They are afraid that keeping their relationships separate from how heterosexual relationships are recognized would leave them vulnerable to future discrimination.





I think the best alternative to this problem is just calling all such relationships, including marriage, ';civil unions.'; Then everyone will have the same rights under the law, and religious people can maintain their tradition interpretations of marriage.
So you propose having two ';separate but equal'; institutions? Like restrooms and drinking fountains and schools?





Marriage used to also mean only between whites, in case you were unaware.





And civil unions DO NOT grant all the rights of marriage, THAT'S the entire point.





I don't give two shits about who marries who, I think polygamy should be just as legal as any other kind of marriage between consenting adults.
Civil unions, in virtually all the States that have them, DO convey ALL the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage.





In my State (CA) the domestic partner law specifically states this. The only difference - and the only thing that the pro gay marriage is seeking - is the term ';marriage';.





Richard
It appears not, as the majority of polls I'ver read say Americans would probably accept civil unions for gay couples; but no one seems satisfied with going that route and letting things take their course from there.





uh...civil unions can be drafted so that they convey the same rights as a civil marriage. Up to the people of the state.
Things change, get used to it! NO they wouldn't be happy with that, nor should they be! The world doesn't revolve around the ';christians'; beliefs ya know?
Lawyers will be happier doing gay divorces. Current shacking up craze is starving divorce lawyers.
They will never be truly happy being in an unnatural union.
Homosexual marriage of any gradation is an absurdity.
I say let them get married and be unhappy like the rest of us married people. Welcome to divorce court!
No they will not be happy. They have already proven that. They are proving it more by PUSHING the issue when most would accept them having all the same rights and calling it a Civil Union. Their argument is that they would be second-class citizens because they can't use the same name. My argument is two fold. One is they want to piss off the religious right and FORCE people to give them the title of marriage. Two that they want to have what everyone else has, including title, and the right DOESN'T want them to be married so split the difference and call everyone's a Civil Union. What about Atheists? Is it still a religious institution if you don't have religion?