Gay Marriage vs. Civil Partnership

[onthemoon]

This was discussed earlier in this subforum, and the result was that Americans prefer to use the term "Marriage" while Europeans don't want to deal with all the religious etc ballast that comes with that term. In fact, in Europe now even straight couples demand same rights for a "Civil Partnership".

Let's say a very active member from the US made us (at least me) believe that gay people in the US want Gay Marriage only. Civil Partnership (or Civil Union) is considered inferior by them. I did believe that this is true (there is a cultural difference between Europe and the US), but it appears there are gay couples that think differently from our respected member:

For some, marriage is an outdated institution, one that forces same-sex couples into the mainstream. For others, marriage imposes financial burdens and legal entanglements. Still others see marriage not as a fairy tale but as a potentially painful chapter that ends in divorce. And then there are those for whom marriage goes against their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

{...}

“There are many heterosexuals who feel the same way,” he added.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/style/gay-couples-choosing-to-say-i-dont.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

My comment: It's about legal equality. Not about the term Marriage, which is loaded with ballast I don't want to have to carry. I would always prefer a Civil Partnership.

[LeCharivari]

Your choice ....

.... but your conclusion that "Americans prefer to use the term "Marriage" while Europeans don't want to deal with all the religious etc ballast that comes with that term" is incorrect even if tongue-in-cheek.

Nobody here can speak for anyone except themselves, unless their view is supported by EVIDENCE - preferably in the form of a vote or, as a minimum and a poor second, a poll. Nobody, unfortunately, has ever asked the general population (or even the gay population) what they want so their actual preferences are unknown, both in America and in Europe. That doesn't stop some people claiming that they "know" and that they "know" better than the rest of us, both on this board and more importantly in politics, but the reality is that they don't.

Would gays in those American States that don't have (and have little likelihood of voting in) Gay Marriages prefer to have a valid and legally equal Civil Union NOW (and maybe a Gay Marriage later)?

I don't know because nobody asked them, but I expect so. Others, who aren't affected, see the "principle" as more important than the practical - they have every right to that opinion, and I respect it, but it isn't a fact.

Would gays AND STRAIGHTS prefer to have the option to choose EITHER same-sex marriage OR Civil Unions, anywhere and everywhere?

I firmly believe they would, but very few countries offer that option: as far as I am aware only France and New Zealand do, and France is the only one where the two differ in anything other than the religious element. Statistics of both gay AND straight couples in France clearly indicate that Civil Unions are growing very strongly in popularity and are a real alternative to marriage. That could be seen as only valid in France, or it could be because it is only available in France, depending on your point of view. Elsewhere Civil Unions are either automatically converted to marriages or they remain for same-sex couples only. In the US some States that now have same-sex marriage also have Civil Unions open to opposite-sex couples, and these are seen by some as a greater threat to the "sacrament" of marriage than same-sex marriage, even though their future is now questionable due to the interpretation of DOMA possibly limiting those couples' legal and financial rights so the option there is likely to be phased out too.

In the UK, as elsewhere, it has simply been "assumed" that gay couples will want to get married rather than have a Civil Union and the option of a Civil Union has never been available to opposite-sex couples. As a consequence I will be "converting" my Civil Partnership to a "Marriage" next year - not because they are any different in my view or in effect, but for one simple reason which would not apply if they were open to all couples: I do not see that my sexual preference is anyone's business but my own and by putting "Civil Partnership" on a form rather than "Married" I am automatically stating that I am gay - I have never hidden that fact, nor would I if asked, but I don't see why I should be obliged to tell anyone every time I complete a form for some petty pen pushing bureaucrat.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/are_states_that_experiment_with_opposite_sex_civil_unions_offering_a_way_to_opt_out_of_oppressive_ideas_about_marriage_.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/06/27/doma-decision-may-affect-civil-unions/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

[ProThaiExpat]

Each country and each state on this earth have laws that differ. In the US equal rights is a major issue and as long as any group is treated differently by the majority, there is a basic civil rights issue.

Years ago, many felt the correct and easiest way to treat this issue was to merely change the terminology in all the existing laws from marriage to civil unions, thus whether same sex or opposite sex, one would go to the government office to obtain a license to have a union and once armed with that license, one would go to ones church and have a ceremony, who may use the word marriage or go to a civil entitity like a judge or clerk and have them certify the union permitting that couple to use the word marriage if they chose.

This approach treats all couples equally and keeps government secular. Not possible with the power of the religious orders to give up their claim of devine guidance and control over marriages. Many married couples, religious or otherwise, just don't want to share what they have in their marriages and the legal recognition of that right. Many gays wouldn't marry or unionize no matter what, fear of commitment prevades straights and gays.

Comparing European cultures with that of the US serves no objective purpose as there are almost as many countries in Europe that have changed their laws to permit same sex marriage as their are US states that have done so likewise. In fact it is my perception that European countries preceeded the US in granting same sex couples the right to marry long before a state in the US did?

[sustento]

The Netherlands was the first European country with same sex marriage in 2001. Denmark was the first with civil partnerships in 1989.

[LeCharivari]

Each country and each state on this earth have laws that differ. In the US equal rights is a major issue and as long as any group is treated differently by the majority, there is a basic civil rights issue.

(edited)

Comparing European cultures with that of the US serves no objective purpose as there are almost as many countries in Europe that have changed their laws to permit same sex marriage as their are US states that have done so likewise. In fact it is my perception that European countries preceeded the US in granting same sex couples the right to marry long before a state in the US did?

I don't think "comparing European cultures with that of the US serves" ANY "purpose" or is even remotely possible, and I think it's a bit of a fabricated issue on this board to make an "us and them" issue where no such issue exists.

There is little or no common "European" culture, so there is simply nothing to compare - depending on your geographical or political perspective Europe comprises some 50 countries, from Russia (or at least Western Russia, with 25% of Russian territory but 75% of the Russian population) to the Vatican City, from Iceland to Malta. Apart from a superficial ethnic similarity there is little common ground and even less common "culture", least of all gay rights and same sex marriage.

Edited November 1, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

Each country and each state on this earth have laws that differ. In the US equal rights is a major issue and as long as any group is treated differently by the majority, there is a basic civil rights issue.

(edited)

Comparing European cultures with that of the US serves no objective purpose as there are almost as many countries in Europe that have changed their laws to permit same sex marriage as their are US states that have done so likewise. In fact it is my perception that European countries preceeded the US in granting same sex couples the right to marry long before a state in the US did?

I don't want to get accused of "US bashing" (again!) but for the record the US has minimal Federal anti-discrimination legislation and no legislation on grounds of sexual preference (except for those in the military or the Postal Service) and little likelihood of any as ENDA seems stagnant, so the idea that "in the US equal rights is a major issue", etc, would appear to be wishful thinking.

.... and also for the record, there are 23 European countries that currently have same sex marriage or Civil Unions (or both) .... and some European countries that are unlikely to have it in any form, or any form of "equal rights" for ethnic, religious or other minorities, until long after such issues are resolved in the US.

[Jingthing]

Nothing to see here folks. Yet another case of toxic homophobia in action. The gift that keeps on giving.

[ToddWeston]

Nothing to see here folks. Yet another case of toxic homophobia in action. The gift that keeps on giving.

But you have to admit it's funny

[sustento]

[Scott]

Numerous posts and replies deleted and one member on suspension.

[onthemoon]

Your choice ....

.... but your conclusion that "Americans prefer to use the term "Marriage" while Europeans don't want to deal with all the religious etc ballast that comes with that term" is incorrect even if tongue-in-cheek.

Not my conclusion. A certain American member of this subforum told us that Americans will accept "no less" than marriage rights. I was not the only European on this list that questioned the "no less" part of it.

Let's face it: Everybody (gay or straight) should have the choice of marriage or civil union. Personally, I'd prefer a civil union but would nevertheless in every talk say that I am married.

[onthemoon]

Nothing to see here folks. Yet another case of toxic homophobia in action. The gift that keeps on giving.

No, homophobic is only the US government's decision to accept gay "marriage" rather than a "civil union". Even though straight people are now interested in civil unions. But I do respect it as a first step.

Full equality means that we don't need the term "marriage" for legal purposes (but can choose to use it if we want to). There should be no difference.

[onthemoon]

Nothing to see here folks. Yet another case of toxic homophobia in action. The gift that keeps on giving.

No, homophobic is only the US government's decision to accept gay "marriage" rather than a "civil union". Even though straight people are now interested in civil unions. But I do respect it as a first step.

Full equality means that we don't need the term "marriage" for legal purposes (but can choose to use it if we want to). There should be no difference.

Hey JT, I just saw that you weren't referring to my post but to somebody else's, which was rightfully deleted. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

BTW it is always good to quote (at least part of) the post you are replying to, so as to avoid misunderstandings.

[ToddWeston]

Nothing to see here folks. Yet another case of toxic homophobia in action. The gift that keeps on giving.

No, homophobic is only the US government's decision to accept gay "marriage" rather than a "civil union". Even though straight people are now interested in civil unions. But I do respect it as a first step.

Full equality means that we don't need the term "marriage" for legal purposes (but can choose to use it if we want to). There should be no difference.

OTM - JT wasn't commenting on the article/thread that comment was a leftover from last evening - we had a hater come in and a few of us made lots and lots of comments and that comment stayed in error.

[Jingthing]

As far as gay people achieving EQUAL rights to marry, in my view, that's the main point, the EQUALITY of choice to other citizens. It is not necessarily an ENDORSEMENT of marriage or a suggestion that everyone SHOULD get married, gay, straight, or otherwise.

Even in 2013, marriage still tends to be read as an indication of a couple’s graduation into the responsible, mainstream world—which, of course, is a place that many gays have long eyed with suspicion.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/10/28/gay_marriage_saying_i_don_t_to_gay_assimilation.html

[onthemoon]

Wow, I never thought this would happen, but I agree with JT: It's about equal rights.

It's not about the wording. I prefer "civil partnership", others may prefer "marriage". That's OK for me, as long as we are talking about equal rights.

[LeCharivari]

Ummm ..... you seem to be suggesting JT has changed his tune, but his point continues to be that it is about equal rights TO MARRY, not about any legal or other rights, and that it IS about the wording.

What you (or I) "prefer" is irrelevant, as generally we don't have any choice (apart from not formalising a relationship, gay or straight). At the moment, for example, you can't register a same-sex relationship in Germany as a marriage any more than an opposite-sex couple can register a civil union (EL). Gays and straights alike are, with few exceptions, not given any choice about what they "prefer" or what "term" they prefer to use.

The problem, and where I sympathise with JT's view although I do not agree with his solution, is that even overlooking the difference in terminology some civil unions are not the equal of marriage and they do not confer the same rights ....just as civil unions (PACS) were (and are) not equal to marriage in France, neither are civil unions (EL) equal to marriage in Germany, but in Germany if the law is changed to make them "equal" on all levels then there will simply be "marriages" in Germany which existing civil unions will be converted to - as has happened elsewhere.

Same-sex civil unions are nothing more than an initial alternative to same-sex marriage designed to make the transition from opposite-sex marriage to any-sex marriage more acceptable to conservatives (small 'c') and to make the legal and other benefits of marriage available to gays sooner rather than later - a means to an end. Some people (such as JT) don't see them as necessary/advantageous, but they aren't some sort of long-term alternative to marriage without the "ballast" you (and others) don't want - we're not being given that option.

"Marriage" is an evolving term which means different things to different people in different countries, cultures and religions. Same-sex marriage is just one more variant, and how much "ballast" (baggage ?) goes along with that in terms of rights, responsibilities, religion, roles, etc, is also evolving and, at least in the West, is very much up to each couple to decide.

"Gay Marriage vs Civil Partnership" isn't an "either/or" choice - Civil Partnerships, Unions, etc, are simply versions of marriage - not a separate institution.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-government-plans-to-rewrite-laws-to-include-civil-unions-a-851502.html

Edited November 9, 2013 by LeCharivari

[jdinasia]

In the US there is an obligation between states to acknowledge the marriage laws of other states (between men an women). If you get married in Alabama, you are married in Georgia as well. Due to the nature of the animosity that some states/regions have to same sex partnerships (with any label) it has always made sense in the US to push for full marriage equality. Then the final hurdle is simple. Force all the states to recognize the already officially sanctioned relationships. When DOMA was gutted it meant that the federal government was put in a situation that they have to give the same benefits to employees ...

The fight for equality is far from over in the US ..... but thankfully I do not live there

[Jingthing]

Just so you know, Mr. LC has WILDLY distorted my actual POV on civil unions. All I ask is let me speak for MYSELF.

Without bothering to even dignify Mr. LC's distortion here in detail (this is a man who doesn't even read my posts anymore according to his announcement yet he acts that he knows my mind well enough to speak for me) I will say that I think the issue of civil unions vs. marriage is very DIFFERENT depending on the particulars of a specific nation.

I DO NOT believe you can realistically UNIVERSALIZE this issue. If you don't see that, check the latest news out of ISRAEL on this issue. They are discussing a civil union vs. marriage controversy that as far as I know is completely UNIQUE to the laws and culture of Israel.

The USA is probably not quite that unique but it is indeed a specific situation and the TACTIC to go for MARRIAGE equality was indeed done DELIBERATELY in response to that SPECIFIC national situation.

Cheers.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

Ummm ..... you seem to be suggesting JT has changed his tune, but his point continues to be that it is about equal rights TO MARRY, not about any legal or other rights, and that it IS about the wording.

What you (or I) "prefer" is irrelevant, as generally we don't have any choice (apart from not formalising a relationship, gay or straight). At the moment, for example, you can't register a same-sex relationship in Germany as a marriage any more than an opposite-sex couple can register a civil union (EL). Gays and straights alike are, with few exceptions, not given any choice about what they "prefer" or what "term" they prefer to use.

The problem, and where I sympathise with JT's view although I do not agree with his solution, is that even overlooking the difference in terminology some civil unions are not the equal of marriage and they do not confer the same rights ....just as civil unions (PACS) were (and are) not equal to marriage in France, neither are civil unions (EL) equal to marriage in Germany, but in Germany if the law is changed to make them "equal" on all levels then there will simply be "marriages" in Germany which existing civil unions will be converted to - as has happened elsewhere.

Same-sex civil unions are nothing more than an initial alternative to same-sex marriage designed to make the transition from opposite-sex marriage to any-sex marriage more acceptable to conservatives (small 'c') and to make the legal and other benefits of marriage available to gays sooner rather than later - a means to an end. Some people (such as JT) don't see them as necessary/advantageous, but they aren't some sort of long-term alternative to marriage without the "ballast" you (and others) don't want - we're not being given that option.

"Marriage" is an evolving term which means different things to different people in different countries, cultures and religions. Same-sex marriage is just one more variant, and how much "ballast" (baggage ?) goes along with that in terms of rights, responsibilities, religion, roles, etc, is also evolving and, at least in the West, is very much up to each couple to decide.

"Gay Marriage vs Civil Partnership" isn't an "either/or" choice - Civil Partnerships, Unions, etc, are simply versions of marriage - not a separate institution.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-government-plans-to-rewrite-laws-to-include-civil-unions-a-851502.html

Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I wonder whether you ever anything positive to say.

I agree with your last sentence though, at let me quote from your link:

The changes mean that partners in a civil union will expressly be put on the same footing before the law as spouses in a traditional marriage. Germany's highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court, has repeatedly ruled that civil unions should be treated the same as heterosexual marriages.

Although it originally opposed the 2001 law, the FDP, which controls the Justice Ministry, now backs equal rights for gay couples, not least because the party's former leader, current German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, is openly gay and married to his partner Michael Mronz.

'They Live According to Conservative Values'

The issue of civil unions, which are colloquially referred to in Germany as "gay marriages," has been in the headlines recently because of an initiative by a group of CDU lawmakers to grant couples in a civil union the same joint-filing tax benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. German Family Minister Kristina Schröder, a member of the CDU, spoke out in support of civil unions, saying that "in lesbian and gay life partnerships, people take lasting responsibility for one another and thus they live according to conservative values."

It is a mystery to me how you could use this in your conclusion to make it sound negative.

[onthemoon]

In the US there is an obligation between states to acknowledge the marriage laws of other states (between men an women). If you get married in Alabama, you are married in Georgia as well. Due to the nature of the animosity that some states/regions have to same sex partnerships (with any label) it has always made sense in the US to push for full marriage equality. Then the final hurdle is simple. Force all the states to recognize the already officially sanctioned relationships. When DOMA was gutted it meant that the federal government was put in a situation that they have to give the same benefits to employees ...

The fight for equality is far from over in the US ..... but thankfully I do not live there

Sure, that problem exists in the US. Full legal equality means that they need to accept civil unions as equal to marriages. In fact, the words should be legally synonymous, and the only difference should be the religious annotation.

[Jingthing]

In the US there is an obligation between states to acknowledge the marriage laws of other states (between men an women). If you get married in Alabama, you are married in Georgia as well. Due to the nature of the animosity that some states/regions have to same sex partnerships (with any label) it has always made sense in the US to push for full marriage equality. Then the final hurdle is simple. Force all the states to recognize the already officially sanctioned relationships. When DOMA was gutted it meant that the federal government was put in a situation that they have to give the same benefits to employees ...

The fight for equality is far from over in the US ..... but thankfully I do not live there

Sure, that problem exists in the US. Full legal equality means that they need to accept civil unions as equal to marriages. In fact, the words should be legally synonymous, and the only difference should be the religious annotation.

You say should but this issue that you seem to think is so important just is NOT important to the vast majority of gay people in the USA. It's already clear that 50 state marriage equality is inevitable and now there are only a FEW states left with ANY civil union laws (and before long there will be ZERO). I can assure you when the day comes of achieving 50 state marriage equality, any voices about something already OBSOLETE in the USA now, will be very very faint if even existing at all. Recently reading about New Jersey and their recent move from civil union to marriage, a commentator put it this way ... that the civil union stage was ASPIRATIONAL ... towards marriage. Sorry you don't like that but that is indeed the mainstream view in the USA, gay and straight. You can think 50 state marriage equality isn't good enough. I can assure you your diminishing that as not a real victory for EQUALITY will be seen as incoherent and strange by the vast majority of Americans. I'm serious. In the USA once marriage equality is achieved nationwide, the concept of U.S. civil unions will fade into NOTHINGNESS forever.

Honestly, I find your POV about the U.S. situation incoherent myself. To U.S. gay activists, it's actually kind of insulting. When we do reach this great goal that is taking decades and we WILL reach it, 50 state marriage equality, the idea that some people will say that doesn't represent real equality just seems really disrespectful to the struggle of so many people.

Again, in the U.S. you can get MARRIED at CITY HALL. No religion. Got that? That's called marriage and it is marriage, you can think of it as a civil marriage if you like, but that is the U.S. system and that is set in stone.

Your POV may indeed may perfect sense in some other countries, but in my view, it simply does not compute in the U.S. context today and NEVER will.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Adding to this, the state of Illinois is the only U.S. state that has civil unions available to same sex and opposite sex couples. Illinois will very soon be a marriage equality state. Now the people in the Illinois civil unions have the choice to be in a civil union or a marriage. There is nothing wrong with that. The opposite sex people who chose that knew going in full well that civil unions do not carry any FEDERAL recognition. So they saw advantages in them anyway. They could choose to marry but chose civil unions. Great. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. federal government WILL ever treat U.S. state civil unions (the few that might be remaining) the same as marriages. They won't. If American couples want federal recognition, they need to marry, and before too long that option will be available to all gay Americans as well. WHY is it is even necessary or desirable for the federal government to recognize this other institution the same as marriage especially at the time of 50 state marriage equality, which is coming? Anyone who wants that recognition can get that recognition, actually even today by marrying in a current marriage equality state.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

In the US there is an obligation between states to acknowledge the marriage laws of other states (between men an women). If you get married in Alabama, you are married in Georgia as well. Due to the nature of the animosity that some states/regions have to same sex partnerships (with any label) it has always made sense in the US to push for full marriage equality. Then the final hurdle is simple. Force all the states to recognize the already officially sanctioned relationships. When DOMA was gutted it meant that the federal government was put in a situation that they have to give the same benefits to employees ...

The fight for equality is far from over in the US ..... but thankfully I do not live there

Not quite correct. Marriages in any state, whoever they are between, are only legal if they are legal in the state where you are, not the state where you were married - so you can't marry your first cousin or someone who is under age in a state where it is legal and expect it to be legal and accepted in a state where it is illegal. The same thing applies to marriage as to driving ages, etc - just because you have a licence from one state does not automatically mean you can drive legally in another state unless you are qualified under that state's laws.

It isn't as simple as it first appears ...

[Jingthing]

I question that in actual application. If someone is married at a young age obviously as they get older that issue goes away, unlike same sex marriages.

As far as legality of cousins marrying, do people really think that if you moved to a new state the authorities would even bother to CHECK that the two people married were cousins or not? They wouldn't. The out of state marriage would be fully accepted.

[LeCharivari]

Ummm ..... you seem to be suggesting JT has changed his tune, but his point continues to be that it is about equal rights TO MARRY, not about any legal or other rights, and that it IS about the wording.

What you (or I) "prefer" is irrelevant, as generally we don't have any choice (apart from not formalising a relationship, gay or straight). At the moment, for example, you can't register a same-sex relationship in Germany as a marriage any more than an opposite-sex couple can register a civil union (EL). Gays and straights alike are, with few exceptions, not given any choice about what they "prefer" or what "term" they prefer to use.

The problem, and where I sympathise with JT's view although I do not agree with his solution, is that even overlooking the difference in terminology some civil unions are not the equal of marriage and they do not confer the same rights ....just as civil unions (PACS) were (and are) not equal to marriage in France, neither are civil unions (EL) equal to marriage in Germany, but in Germany if the law is changed to make them "equal" on all levels then there will simply be "marriages" in Germany which existing civil unions will be converted to - as has happened elsewhere.

Same-sex civil unions are nothing more than an initial alternative to same-sex marriage designed to make the transition from opposite-sex marriage to any-sex marriage more acceptable to conservatives (small 'c') and to make the legal and other benefits of marriage available to gays sooner rather than later - a means to an end. Some people (such as JT) don't see them as necessary/advantageous, but they aren't some sort of long-term alternative to marriage without the "ballast" you (and others) don't want - we're not being given that option.

"Marriage" is an evolving term which means different things to different people in different countries, cultures and religions. Same-sex marriage is just one more variant, and how much "ballast" (baggage ?) goes along with that in terms of rights, responsibilities, religion, roles, etc, is also evolving and, at least in the West, is very much up to each couple to decide.

"Gay Marriage vs Civil Partnership" isn't an "either/or" choice - Civil Partnerships, Unions, etc, are simply versions of marriage - not a separate institution.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-government-plans-to-rewrite-laws-to-include-civil-unions-a-851502.html

Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I wonder whether you ever anything positive to say.

I agree with your last sentence though, at let me quote from your link:

The changes mean that partners in a civil union will expressly be put on the same footing before the law as spouses in a traditional marriage. Germany's highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court, has repeatedly ruled that civil unions should be treated the same as heterosexual marriages.

Although it originally opposed the 2001 law, the FDP, which controls the Justice Ministry, now backs equal rights for gay couples, not least because the party's former leader, current German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, is openly gay and married to his partner Michael Mronz.

'They Live According to Conservative Values'

The issue of civil unions, which are colloquially referred to in Germany as "gay marriages," has been in the headlines recently because of an initiative by a group of CDU lawmakers to grant couples in a civil union the same joint-filing tax benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. German Family Minister Kristina Schröder, a member of the CDU, spoke out in support of civil unions, saying that "in lesbian and gay life partnerships, people take lasting responsibility for one another and thus they live according to conservative values."

It is a mystery to me how you could use this in your conclusion to make it sound negative.

My contributions are generally either my views or intended to correct information posted here which is factually incorrect; if that doesn't fit in with your views, so be it.

I am not arguing with you, simply stating the facts - namely that the particular civil union you say you "prefer" and which you seem to imply is "equal" to marriage is NOT equal and IF it is made equal it will no longer be termed a civil union but a marriage.

The link was to show that, although there are any number of more recent links which confirm the proposed changes in Germany. It had nothing specifically to do with my "conclusion", nor was it intended to be "negative" - simply factual, to show that your suggestion that "Europeans don't want to deal with all the religious etc ballast that comes with that term" was incorrect. That may be your view, just as JT has his view and I have my view, but that is all they are - our personal views. I have yet to see any links supporting JT's view, and your view is clearly contrary to the policy of every European country and doesn't apply anywhere in the world except New Zealand where it is receiving minimal support.

There is NO "Gay Marriage vs. Civil Partnership" issue at any national level. You may not like it or agree with it, but Civil Partnerships are a transitional step, nothing more - not an end in themselves.

(Note: the recent civil union issue in Israel is unique to Israel and a totally separate issue as it primarily concerns religious laws not human or equal rights)

[Jingthing]

I am curious to know what is going to happen with ILLINOIS civil unions which are uniquely for the U.S. open to gay and straight. These unions from the start were clearly defined as separate AND unequal with no ambiguity whatsoever. The straight people entering knew that, knew they COULD marry and get full federal rights, but didn't. That's kind of interesting. So I am guessing now when the Illinois same sex marriage legality passes, the civil unions there won't be transitional, they WILL be a separate thing. There will be NO REASON whatsoever for those in those unions to even bother lobbying for federal recognition, and they won't. If anyone even tried, they would simply be told, stop you're whining and get MARRIED down at CITY HALL if you want, there's your federal recognition. Yes, I see nothing wrong that at all. If people CHOOSE to be in something separate AND unequal by free will choice when there is ALSO the choice for entering the FULL RIGHTS option, go for it. Freedom, and all that.

Before I said civil unions in the U.S. would go away when 50 state marriage equality is achieved. But in the case of at least Illinois, that seems probably wrong, because of their unique type of civil union. I have tried to find news about what happens to these unions upon same sex marriage legalization there, but have found nothing, however, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to end that option as they were for gay and straight and UNEQUAL by definition from the start. That said, I would be very surprised indeed if any OTHER states go for this kind of civil union option for all, with no federal rights by definition, even now, and especially after 50 state marriage equality.

BTW, the TACTIC to go for MARRIAGE equality in the USA was a free will decision by the majority of American gay activists and this long term tactic did get and still enjoys OVERWHELMING support from the majority of gay Americans. It wasn't the only tactical option. It was intentional. Generally yes the civil unions in some states option was done as a better than nothing, TRANSITIONAL phase. It's working now faster than most activists wildest dreams and full victory is inevitable so there is no going back now.

Of course focusing on marriage equality was strategic. It is not the only or even arguably the most important point. As many know, ENDA, anti-discrimination against gays in employment legislation just passed the U.S. senate but it will NOT pass the house ... now.

Similar legislation does exist in a number of states, but this is needed NATIONALLY.

Gay Americans understand quite well that once you start winning the culture changing marriage equality battle which is THE BIG ONE (which we are) the field is set for other important victories. Someday ENDA will pass in the house as well and will be law. Again, the TACTIC of extreme focus on marriage equality is working and there is no turning back now.

It's really kind of late to argue with the wisdom of the intentional tactics of the American gay civil rights movement to focus on marriage equality, now that it is working so incredibly well. You could argue ACADEMICALLY that progress MIGHT have been faster to go for a national civil union strategy, but you wouldn't really KNOW that, and it's water under bridge, that didn't happen and now it will never happen as there is no need to even CONSIDER that anymore.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

That is not true a marriage that is recognized in one state is recognized in all states, even if it is not legal in the state where they reside.

If one state says you can must be 18 to marry and the neighboring state says 16, you can cross the border and get married int he neighboring state and it's a done deal in the other state. You do have to meet whatever criteria that state has, such as residency, though.

Why do you think so many people run off to Las Vegas to get married?

[ProThaiExpat]

Scott: So right, its called the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. Each state is supposed to give"full faith and credit" to each other's laws.

However, in practice it often is not enforced as the laws of the rogue state will control until it is taken to a US Federal Court where it should be ruled unconstitutional, not by State Constitution, but by the US Constitution.

JT: Your question regarding "what happens to civil untions when a state adopts same sex marriage" was answered in California, I believe, when a state court ruled that the civil union, being by its own language "has the same rights as a marriage" that for all intents and purposes is a marriage and the court will treat the civil union as a marriage. Merger may be the concept.

[Jingthing]

I find it hard to believe that Illinois will instantly convert their civil unions to marriage on legalization of same sex marriage for the main reason that some opposite sex couples CHOSE that option in free will knowing it was NOT marriage and did NOT include federal recognition. We'll see. It's an oddball case indeed in the American context. I've been unsuccessful in finding a link discussing this, what happens to Illinois civil unions when same sex marriage legalization goes through. I still think the most likely answer is -- NOTHING.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Jingthing