Credit Guides And Credit Services

Civil unions same as 'separate but equal'

Date 4/1/2004 12:00 AM | Topic: Letters to the Editor

In response to David Bleich's opinion piece (""), he stated the following, "I personally see little difference in civil unions and actual marriage - the only difference is that we do not call civil unions marriages, but we grant the same benefits to a civil unions as we would a married couple." This is actually not the case. Civil unions are not the same as marriages - at all.

Realistically speaking, civil unions are just another form of "separate, but not equal" for gay people. Many see civil unions and marriages as the same thing, just with a different name, and for homosexuals. However, they are two different entities. Yes, at the state level, civil unions would guarantee legal protection, but on a national level, there would be no federal protection. Furthermore, people in civil unions would still be denied the security, dignity, recognition and/or power associated with the word "marriage." There are many problems with civil unions.

Currently, there is no portability because they're not recognized from state to state. The possibilities of termination are not the greatest - marriages end in divorce, but in order to end a civil union, you have to establish residency in Vermont in order to file for divorce. Also, tax benefits as well as public benefits for families are limited because the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions. Therefore, people cannot receive insurance, means tested programs like Medicaid, etc. Even things as simple as filling out forms become another type of non-recognition. There's no spot to fill for "civil unioned" as opposed to "single" or "married." Civil unions and marriages are about as equal as segregated schools.

Meghan Karels ('05)

[ Comment, Edit or Article Submission ]