• Tue, Mar 12 - 3:35 pm ET

Civil Unions In Colorado? This Marriage Equality Supporter Isn’t Impressed.

marriage equalityThere was a huge legislative victory for Democrats in Colorado today. Civil unions for same-sex couples were approved by the state’s legislature and will soon give gay and lesbian partners access to more rights than ever before in this state. But as I read about the newest state to approve civil unions, (Colorado is the 19th), I couldn’t help but be a little… under-whelmed. Civil unions? When full-fledged marriage equality feels so within our grasp?

I am a straight married woman, but I consider myself fully invested in the fight for marriage equality in this country. When Barack Obama voiced his support for same-sex marriage, I think I actually shed tears of joy. When California’s courts struck down Proposition 8 and sent the case to the Supreme Court, I stood up and jumped around my living room. I think our Koa and I even made a virtual toast. And when the 2012 elections approved same-sex marriage rights through the will of the electorate in states like Maine, Maryland and Wisconsin, I was downright ecstatic.

Call me crazy, but as a citizen of this country who knows and loves people of varying sexual orientations, I think that the marriage equality battle is one we can all feel invested in. So yes, I refer to it as “our battle.” And civil unions in Colorado did not feel like “our victory.” It was kinda… meh.

Some might call the hang up on the word marriage nit-picky. If civil unions offer the same basic rights as marriage, what’s the big deal with calling them two separate things? But I feel like legally setting them up at separate institutions is a dangerous construct to accept. It means that every time legislation gives married couples a protection or an incentive or a consideration, there could be an argument about whether said article should apply to civil unions as well. Think of how hard we had to fight to expand the Violence Against Women Act to same-sex couples. Do we want to continually have these arguments and fight these fights?

And honestly, if the argument is made that, “Who care about a different name?” then consider why people care about calling the institutions the same thing. What’s the difference? The problem is that some people want to solidify that there’s a difference between same-sex partnerships and straight marriage. And there’s isn’t. Or at least, there shouldn’t be.

So excuse me if I don’t pop the champagne bottle for civil unions. We’re marriage equality snobs over here. We don’t get out of bed for anything less than full equality.

(Photo: paintings/Shutterstock)

Share This Post:
Related Topics: Stuff • • •
  • CW

    The government needs to get out of the business of recognizing which unions are and aren’t marriages and leave that up to individual houses of worship to decide in accordance with the teachings of their affiliated faiths. The government should provide a legal framework for couples to commit to each other, and that would solve the whole equality issue. If a homosexual couple wants to have their legally recognized union blessed in a marriage ceremony, then they could find a liberal church/synagogue willing to do so. Conservative faiths who hold marriage to be a sacrament between a man and woman could continue to restrict it to opposite-sex couples. The government needs to stop weighing in on an issue of morality and instead just concern itself with the legalities of recognizing unions.

    • alice

      this has somewhat always been my biggest complaint too. if only we could get a time machine and go back to the first instance the word “marriage” was used as a secular term. and then smack that person.

      why the hell a fundie is okay with legally sharing their sacred word “marriage” with a couple of [atheists/satan-worshippers/swingers[ who wed [outside the church/under a burning cross/completely naked] but they’re SO NOT OKAY with sharing the word with a same sex couple, is so completely fucking nutty. :headdesk:

    • Eileen

      Actually, marriage pre-dates Abrahamic religion – which was one of Luther’s main arguments when he claimed that it was not a sacrament in “On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). And if you think about it, secular marriage in the premodern world makes sense. Legally recognizing a monogamous heterosexual union helps to ensure that men’s property passes only to their biological offspring. In other words, unnecessary since the creation of the paternity test.

      Personally, I’d rather use “civil union” for everything in part because I would eventually like to see the government recognizing kinship established between people in a nonsexual but close, familial relationship (e.g. best friend). I have absolutely no problem with same-sex marriage per se, but it’s still legal granting of familial rights to exactly two people in a monogamous, sexual relationship.

      And yeah, if your religion considers marriage a sacrament, cool. Baptisms, bar mitzvahs, and confirmations are also big deals in their respective religions, but the government doesn’t recognize them.

    • alice

      interesting point about the word marriage pre-dating religion. thank you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/paul.white.3532507 Paul White

      my ideal would have civil unions for everyone, and marriage would be that funny thing in a church that involves a preacher of some religion.

    • alice

      agreed.

    • CrazyFor Kate

      They have a system like that in some countries (such as France, I think). You can have all the religious ceremony you want, but it doesn’t count at all in the government’s eyes. You have to have the civil ceremony, separately, before they will consider you married, no matter what religion (if any) you are. Some people don’t consider themselves married until the religious ceremony is finished too, though.

  • chickadee

    Remember, though, that Colorado is home to some pretty conservative factions. Colorado Springs is a stronghold for fundamentalists and is the home of that dude who invented Purity Balls. It tried to introduce a personhood bill like the one that failed in Mississippi. So from a practical perspective, this IS good news. Homosexual couples have legal rights and legal standing in some vital areas and the legalization of unions will open the door to the legalization of marriage once people realize that society didn’t collapse.

  • faifai

    What are you saying, “separate but equal” isn’t good enough for you?
    Yeah, it’s not good enough for me either.

  • CrazyFor Kate

    Agreed. Civil unions are totally hollow. We won’t stop until same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and carries all the benefits at every level an opposite-sex marriage does.

  • LiteBrite

    “And when the 2012 elections approved same-sex marriage rights through the will of the electorate in states like Maine, Maryland and Wisconsin, I was downright ecstatic.”

    Can you please correct this line? Wisconsin does NOT have same-sex marriage rights. In fact, same sex marriage was banned by constitutional amendment in 2006. We do allow limited rights through domestic partnership legislation; however, actual marriage is not allowed.

    (I’m not at all saying I agree with it. Just saying it’s not accurate.)

  • Tea

    It’s a start, and while it’s certainly not equal or enough, it’s a huge step for couples who now suddenly have access to things like insurance and emergency room visits. I’d almost move back to my home state if they allowed it.