Gay Marriage Vs. Civil Unions

I think there is a great deal of confusion in America today.

Why do homosexuals need marriage when they have Civil Unions?
I cannot tell you how many times I have stumbled across this question.

First, I would like to state the definition of Marriage and Civil Union.
Marriage: A legal binding between two people, often for love and companionship, that offers many benefits and is recognized throughout cultures, countries, and states.
Civil Union: A legal binding that exists to protect homosexual couples, but is only available in a handful of states. Civil Unions offer some of the same benefits as marriage, but is not nationally or federaly recognized.

A couple married in one state is married in all states, this is federally recognized and the married couple is offered federal benefits, such as filing joint taxes that provide protections and exemptions. Civil Unions are not federally recognized, and two homosexuals who are legally a couple in one state cannot move to a different state and have the same legal status. A straight American citizen can sponsor a foreign spouse, because marriage is nationally recognized between countries and cultures. Homosexual couples do not have this right. The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,097 benefits offered to straight married couples. Included in these benefits is Survivor Benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for a spouse, insurance breaks and veterans benefits. A married couple can make medical decisions for each other in the event that the spouse is not capable. These benefits are not supported by a Civil Union. It is possible to obtain these benefits through a lawyer, but it takes a lot of time and thousands of dollars, where as a marriage often costs less than 100 dollars. The fact that Civil Unions are not federally recognized creates an unequal and seperate status for homosexuals. This eerily reminds me of the segregation laws during the 50's and 60's, where blacks had most of the same rights as whites, yet were seperated. We have evolved from this racial discrimination, but when will we grow to accept all human rights, for all humans?

"
[*] Women's Rights
[*] African American Rights
[ ] Gay Rights
I can't believe we still have to protest this crap."

I think this is a huge issue facing every American today. I am greatly interested in human rights, especially gay rights, and wish to be active in this political event. I would love to hear others opinions and intellect on the subject.

I love the fact that you do not let your spirituality affect your political agenda. I do not want to change the opinions or beliefs of others, I would just like to be free to express and live my own. Unfortunately, those who let their opinions rule over other's born rights force me to supress my own, and I am subject to rejection from society and federal law because of a large part of me that I cannot control.
Divorce is a touchy subject, even more so than marriage; which means things are getting very physical, very fast. As for the example you offered, it is comparable to an ex-criminal not confessing his past sins, even though he lives a new life, to his new spouse. It is a matter of trust rather than sexuality, I think. but that is all based on personal morals and virtues. I am only bringing up this issue of Gay marriage to show those who have previously let their personal opinions affect other american citizens to live a free, beneficial, and equal life.

I agree that we may have become too technical in the benefits issue, but it is more a fight for equality rather than benefitting. If straight American couples can do this, what makes homosexual American couples so different? My only plea is that people do not just sit back and say 'let them do what they want to do, I have no say in the matter' but rather stand up and say 'I enjoy these rights, and who am I to infringe upon other's? I will vote for this because, wether they share my beliefs or not, they are entitled to the same benefits that I am.'

I found it funny that you said 'the cheif doesn't sleep with the warrior nor did his wife sleep with the squaw'... not knowing if you were refering to any indian tribe but that is what it reminded me of. Did you know that men in some indian tribes who portrayed women aspects played women's roles, often wearing dresses and knitting, and were married to men? the same went for women who took on masculine roles. A little off subject, but just a morsel of information to chew on :-P

-edit-
I think I read the first part of your post wrong.
I agree that if we are the free society that we claim to be, there should be no need for such a law. Did you know marriage (the legal aspect: benefits, recognition, and constitutionality; not the concept itself) was brought about by the uproar of interracial relationships and the conflict that arised to white people? Before then, it was merely a contract between two families. If you and your spouse claimed you were married, even with no witnesses, nobody would refute the statement. It is strange that only when prejudice is introduced federal law is brought into play.

I don't like the whole marriage vs. civil unions, there are religious people out there who believe homosexuals have the right to be married and there are also priests and pastors willing to perform the ceremonies, just because I don't believe in it personally doesn't mean I have the right to take it away from them.

What don't you like about it?
It is a critical subject that dictates many people's lives to a certain degree. It definitley affects my views of America, home of the free.
I am very glad that there are religious figures who support gay marriage, and I can only hope they set an example for other spiritual human beings to accept and enable human rights for everyone.

There should be no debate, if they want to get married and there are people willing to marry them, they have that right. Can we say that because our more mainstream religions are against it, we then speak for all religious people? Why aren't we out hounding the hetero couples who abuse marriage and its sanctity? We only care when it is something we can't see in ourselves and don't understand.

I agree that their should be no debate. unfortunately, marriage has become a federal proclamation of benefits and exemptions; and there are many who believe that homosexuals should not even have the right to breathe the same air, let alone marry in their church- and these same people vote against gay marriage, thus providing an unequal parallel for couples who are not of a heterosexual persuasion. If marriage were known merely as the concept it once was, this would not be such an issue.

Its nice that you're fighting for a minority's rights... but I guess you'll only get pretentious tolerance rather than acceptance... But again that's what you'll ever accept from people not thinking for themselves.

The idea of marriage and its purity is a joke, if you looked at the divorce rates, you'd see why... I think what the people of California has done is quite selfish in that they'll accept you're right to get "married" but you won't be like "us"...

And that's the sad thing... I accept people who want to have the same rights, as long as it's not hurting anyone... and I don't think it has