So what is the difference between "marriage" and "civil union", other than the different words used to describe them?
I believe most people are complaining about the fact that the Left (including liberal homosexuals) are tyring to redefine a term that has been used for centuries with a particular meaning.
I have no problem with the term "civil union". And I have no problem with gays having civil unions, with certain consequences. But when you define marriage to encompass "civil unions", you change, with one stroke of the pen, volumes of established law, both state and federal. Much of the law surrounding marriages (e.g., community property) stems from the Common Law. When you redefine "marriage" to include civil unions, there are likely to be innumerable unintended consequences.
A far better, and more acceptable approach, is to define "civil union", then to codify precisely what that means in the context of marriage. Did Congress intend to change property rights at death, or should we let the courts decide? Did Congress intend to allow access to medical records, or should the courts decide? What constitutes a "civil union"? We've had marriage for centuries and there are STILL definitional issues that arise all the time, depending on what state someone is in.
There is a TON of state and dependent federal law that would, overnight, become ambiguous as states redefine "marriage". It is stupid. Words mean things. Let's keep it that way.
Calling a civil union a "marriage" is about as broad a redefinition of a term as one can imagine. It is not automatically a religious issue for many people (me included). It is really a matter of practicality. |
