The argument that gets so many in a froth is that somehow gays getting married will somehow destroy the very foundations of marriage itself.
The solution proposed and claimed by many opponents of gay marriage is that of Civil Unions....which are marriages except in name only. ]--the joining of 2 people that allows extra benefits because of the coupling, whether or not they have children, since the benefits for children only happen when they do.

So basically we have an argument over a name/title.............

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage

If there is no difference bewteen the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?

A civil union may not be religious, as in a Jewish wedding to a Christian, both are religious but obviously not that same in type.

I guess the reason for the classification of it would be reasons dealing with social issues. If religious rule rejects say same sex people getting married by means of their chosen faith. A union which gives legal recognition to such would be the next best thing, and being it is different it would be what it is, a civil union.

I think most people (of both sides) realize that, in effect, there is little practical difference between the two.

And so I think you answered your second question in your own post when you said As there's no effective difference between civil unions and marriage, the people who believe that gay marriage will cause society to crumble will not be placated by calling it by another name. And amusingly, it is reasonably logical conclusion.... if you're working from the premise that gay marriage will somehow hurt society. Now, I'm honestly not quite sure about people worrying about marriage itself and only itself being damaged... I've not talked to anyone whose taken that position. The people I know who are against gay marriage inevitably fall back on the potential "damage" to society itself.

And, in all fairness, you can be against civil unions for other reasons as well... I'm personally against their commonly unstood implementation because I'd like to see it taken a step further. Have the government only recognize civil unions, and make marriage a purely religious term.

So if we ban gays to use the word marriage, but allow them to have civil unions, then aren't we discriminating against churches that would marry them? That would be a heck of a lawsuit there.

Thats my point. Establish civil unions in full and forget about the word marriage--let the conservatives have it. That way when they strut around proclaiming they have "saved" marriage the pure absurdity of the whole thing will be self evident.

You cannot make up that kind of material--ask any comedy writer--even the best daily show writers couldn't create something so farsical.

heh, I think you missed my point... that to these people it's not just about the word marriage. If it was, your point would be valid, and it would be impossible to argue against civil unions. But I really don't think that's the case... I haven't read any gay marriage threads on AD, but is that (focusing on the word) a common view here?

As much as I don't agree with that whole side of the debate, it seems to me that this is something of a strawman.

No actually I took your point clearly--here is mine just to be clear on why I find the whole argument against gay marriage quite simply one of the more absurd and useless arguments currently pursued---civil unions and marriage are the same exact thing--and just to be crystal, hence the title of the thread--the ONLY difference is the title--Marriage.
A joining of persons that allows for extra benefits not readily availible to the individual. recognition that the binding of the persons is a step beyond just friends.
Generally the act which seals the formation of a family or the beginning of one.

There is no difference between the two--except for the titleword itself.

Marriage=Civil Unions

Even if one is performed in a church and the other might just require a signed peice of paper they are the same animal. Its like arguing over the way to say water--its just as wet either way. It won't change its reality by what you call it. water = aqua aqua = water.

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage

It would depend how the state law defines a "civil union". I think most people assume that they are the same, but they wouldn't have to be.

If there is no difference bewteen the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?

For the sake of argument, I'll go with the assumption that there is "no difference between the two" in any substantial way. At its core, I think the rationale for wanting to keep "marriage" and "civil union" separate is the desire to acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between: a traditional husband/wife (usually with kids) and same sex couples (usually without kids).
I think people fear (and rightly so) that if we go down the civil union road or the gay marriage road, it takes us as a society further down the road in viewing marriage as primarily about the two adults in the relationship and less (if at all) about the children.

There is no actual rational aboutgay marriage. It is just a masquerade to try and put a false positive on the desire to deny gays something they might want.
the child argument is simply blanche's evasion by soft light.

Civil unions with or without children are the exact same as marriage--If there is any
"legal" difference--thats simply lawyers being lawyers and taking perfectly logical and sensible clear language and making a mess of it so they have a back door if need be.---always has to some fine print, Just in case.

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage

If there is no difference bewteen the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?

* * * * * * *

#1, any difference would depend on how the institution of a civil union is defined by law. I would hope that a civil union would include identical benefits to those currently enjoyed in marriage.

#2, there's no logic arguing at all. However, to get the important thing accomplished, I'd be quite willing to see "marriage" as something you have contracted in a church and a "civil union" something you have contracted by a judge, justice of the peace, or other nonreligious official. Frankly, a lot of church weddings are shams anyway -- the couple just want a pretty place to get married in, or they don't want to disappoint Grandma by getting married without a priest or rabbi or whatever. They have no intention of involving the church in their marriage once they're back down the aisle, so why not keep the church out of it from the beginning?

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage
There's the name. The word "marriage" has emotional impact. The word "civil union" has no emotional impact. Marriage makes you think of weddings and flowers. Civil unions make you think of courthouses and legal forms. Aside from that there isn't any real difference.

If there is no difference between the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?
Americans are very sentimental about marriage. People continue to spend thousands of dollars to have lavish weddings. Marriage is an important ritual for regular heterosexual Americans. Having gays get "married" instead of "civil unioned" is different on an emotional level. Calling it marriage puts two homosexuals getting married on equal footing with two heterosexuals getting married. Many Americans believe homosexuality is immoral so the government putting them on equal footing with the ancient sacrament of marriage is upsetting. I would bet most people don't care so much about the legal visitation rights or inheritance for homosexuals.

Call me crazy but if you care less about your children because gay people are getting married, you shouldn't be a parent in the first place. At the core, these are relationships between individuals, not between government and society. You get married because you love someone, not to acknowledge to rightness of your way of life.

Then why are there marriage financial benefits? And why do same sex couples want them so bad?

If marriage is just recognition, there are a lot of financial incentives that currently make no sense. Of course, that's only one person's unpopular opinion...

I would probably say that with the massive divorce rate in this country--politicians are doing their best to prop up what appears to be a rather WEAK institution. Unfortunately for some they really cannot blame gays for the numbers on marriage--try though they might. Also who DOESN'T want even MORE tax breaks--I'll take any I can get.
If we finally get some real definitions nailed down for civil unions and I am willing to bet an even further decline in the numbers of "marriages" in this country.
Of course for those afraid of the loss of the word marriage they could always add a clause to their version which clearly states that you can never--once officially "married"-- never ever under ANY circumstances ever be legally separated again--even make it a jailable offense--after all if marriage is so desperately in need of protection as an institution and is unable to flourish except in delicate hothouse conditions--every imaginable step should of course be made to save it from being toppled by the forces of social chaos and other evil doers and assorted characters. Otherwise soon even cats and dogs shall be getting married and we shall have anarchy I tell you.
A second idea could be a series of large concerts--Marriage Aid-- trying to raise awareness of the critical period we have entered where marriage may soon be extinct.
T-shirts, collector edition beer cups--the works.

That isn't really what same sex couples want DR. I wrote a post here that describes the "benefits" you get from being married from a tax perspective. The fact of the matter is that you don't really get any. The whole getting married and having kids thing benefits you from a tax perspective is a myth.

So what is it about? Well aside from the equality argument (which I personally feel is strong enough justification) it is about several legal rights that married couples are granted by merely signing their name to a marriage license. They have to do with things like insurance, ability to visit your partner in the hospital, custody of children (gay parents can and do adopt). Depending on what state you live in some of these things can be obtained at great legal expense but some cannot.

So calling it a "civil union" from a legal perspective would, I'm sure, be perfectly ok with most couples. Of course it wouldn't really matter in reality because who is going to say they were "civil unioned" in conversation, they are going to say they are married.

Well, I showed irrefutably in this post http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=174050 that married couples often do receive tax benefits; citing MSN Money as a source.

Simply put, if visiting someone in the hospital or insurance policies are the issues, I would venture to state that hospitals and insurance companies are PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS!. If homosexuals don't like the policies of not being able to get the same discounts as married heterosexual companies, what does it have to do with the government? (I surely hope that you don't assert that the government should step in and force this to happen...)

I believe that you have a strong value for equality, and applaud that, but frankly... your argument is flawed here. The government can't and shouldn't intervene largely in the affairs of private business, and taxation is set for married couples at this point. I would argue that something like our buddy the flat tax would alleviate this whole burden...

No you didn't, and I responded in that thread. Those are not tax benefits. Tax benefits are a very specific thing and I am absolutely correct in stating that you have no tax advantage by being married. I am also correct in stating that the government does not encourage you to have kids or get married on the basis of taxes.

HUH? That's not exactly an objective response.

For those in question, here's the link;
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P48908.asp

According to the Congressional Budget Office in 1996, 51% of all married couples benefited from filing jointly. How is that not a benefit?

More from that article (ref above).
And at least for now, the income-tax penalty is history for the majority of couples. The standard deduction for married couples is now twice that for singles, and the 15% tax bracket has been widened for marrieds to $56,800, twice the limit for singles.

Those who didn’t face a penalty, but got a bonus instead, will see that bonus rise. The change in the standard deduction alone will save couples $155, and the larger 10% and 15% bracket could add hundreds more.

There’s still a potential for an income tax marriage penalty once joint incomes reach the 25% bracket, although married couples will still pay less in taxes this year than last.

CJ...I hate to break it to you, but "you're wrong" isn't an effective argument. Why exactly am I wrong??

Oh so it is a benefit because the CBO says that couples "benefited" from filing jointly? That is a pretty darn shaky argument aevans.

The married standard deduction is twice the single deduction because there are... wait for the earth shattering news... two people in that relationship. Therefore if you are both income earners you gain absolutely no benefit from this, the only way you'd benefit is if only one person worked.

Furthermore, if you own a house (and I'd say the vast majority of the married population does - including single income earners) then in most cases you itemize deductions and don't take the standard deduction.

I am right because I have accounting on my side, I'm not quite sure what you have on your side.

I apologize CJ, as I used MSN Money and a professional as my source!
They surely employ those whom have little or no idea as to what they're doing. Neither does the Congressional Budget Office.

Basically what the article was saying (follow me... it also used *accounting*) was that couples that married and had large gaps in income greatly benefited. One could deduce that this happens, as the Congressional Budget Office stated that 51% of married couples benefited by being married. It also stated that the 15% tax bracket widened. In addition, the standard deduction increased.



If you're using the argument that the standard deduction is less beneficial and that itemization is where married couples would most often choose to itemize, then why on earth does it matter that the standard deduction counts twice when you're married? (you made that argument eariler... )

Simply put... (to use you're *accounting* term);

If a man and a woman marry and one made $46000 prior to marriage and the other made $12000, their taxable income would be $58000, which falls into the 15% tax bracket. (previously one would've been in the 15% bracket, while the other in the 25% bracket)
The difference in taxation would be over $1600 per year. Check out this chart:
http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/2005reference.htm

What the article is saying is that it's likely that many couples fell into one of the categories. This could also happen in professional couples (*AHEM*). For instance, if a couple has someone that made $72K last year and another that made $40K, their taxation also decreases by over $6200!!!

This doesn't necessarily account for home ownership, etc... but many married couples DO benefit from being married in reference to taxations...

It doesn't matter if the standard deduction increased from previous years (which is what your article states). The question wasn't do married couples benefit more now or ten years ago.

How much effect the standard deduction has on your tax payable all depends on whether it throws you into a new bracket or not. You could have a scenario where two people are not married and they do the same or better to a comparable married couple. You can also have situations where that is not the case. My point is that this isn't some compelling reason to get married. You and others are suggesting it is and that it somehow encourages marriage and you are wrong. The facts do not support your argument.


Because there are two people in a marriage... next question. And it doesn't count twice, it is double the amount of the individual standard deduction and you file one return.

If you own a home and are paying a mortgage then more likely than not you won't be using the standard deduction anyway.

And for the last time, I did not say married couples do not benefit financially from being married. I said the government does not encourage marriage through financial benefit because the benefits are negligible for most people. If you are getting married for the financial benefits then frankly, you aren't that smart and you are signing yourself up for a lot of hard work for little benefit.

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage

As it has been stated, it depends on how a civil union is defined. The version just passed in Pennsylvania excludes heterosexuals from such a union. This is the only type of civil union I could potentially agree with.

If there is no difference bewteen the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?

As I stated in another thread, there should be a difference. Marriage should be looked upon as the primary institution for social reproduction. Civil unions should be looked upon as an institution for the social benefits of homosexuals.

If a couple that garners $112K in salaries and saves $6200, that is pretty significant.

You also did say...


While I agree that getting married for the tax benefit is a little bit far fetched, and not particularly smart... many families do save money by getting married and/or having children.

If the median household income is roughly $44000, I believe that a couple grand per year (for having kids and being married) could be beneficial. Regardless of how some of us live, a few hundred dollars/month is a help.

(In our case... not having children, we still come out ahead!)....

So, if you save $1 by getting married, how is that not encouraging marriage via taxation? Same income... less taxation. Simple enough to me.

It sure sounds like you were saying the former to me. Otherwise, what financial benefits (other than the tax benefits you claim don't exist) are you talking about?

Although I believe the economic argument shouldn't apply to this issue either way.

No actually I'm not, there are plenty of financial benefits that are not related to taxes. You can even read aevans Money article to find out what they are (insurance, benefits, etc).

1.) Only by the constraints of the law. Marriage is the sharing of one life with two bodies. Civil Unions grant little benefit to the same idea-- two people bound by love. Whether you award the name marriage or not, Civil Unions are the only next-best-thing we have in this society and are therefore the mirror images of one another.

2.) There is little difference where love and a relationship is concerned. The only part I would permit belief is American law prohibits same-sex marriage; ergo, benefits of marriage do not extend to two people entered together in to a Civil Union.

Well, as far as I know about tax codes, there is representation for all kinds of situations that pertain in particular to culture in America, be it from how much money you make to you station in life in regards to other situations. Example being single parents still get to claim children on tax issues, so I guess going along with marriage makes incentives for having children, I guess so does single parenthood in that view. Maybe its just representation then, more so then defining socialist incentives for actions in life.

The other issue is the same sex couple. Its part of society even if looked down upon by some. People engage in relationships that are same sex, for whatever reasons people may want to think they do such for is of no concern to the fact that it does occur, naturally.

So with that in mind, I cannot look down upon such couples that would like to obtain for whatever reasons they have motivation from, legal representation of their relationship.

With so much representation going on for other issues, or parts of society, why do we not care to represent this one. It boils down to people simply just not wanting same sex couples to have support in society in my opinion. The rest of the arguments applied always come from a slippery slope. Such as if we allow for same sex couples there would be no reason to argue against people wanting to marry some dead body, or a animal that is not human. These cases would ultimately be separate then this, for the simple reason same sex unions are not people wanting to marry a cow. Using that line of logic will simply not make sense if you apply it to other situations. Such as, guns are legal, why cant I purchase nerve gas.

Thank you for mentioning that not all religions are against gay marriage. I'm Unitarian Universalist and my religion says that it is immoral to treat marriage differently based upon the gender the parties involved, we believe in "the inherent worth and dignity of every person" including LGBT people, and we believe that denying marriage rights to these people violates their inherent worth and dignity and a violates our religious principles. For a Unitarian minister to treat a gay marriage differently than a herosexual marriage is a violation of our religion. The way is usually works now is that the state ignores the ceremony was preformed and we ignore that the state doesn't recognize it. Some Unitarian ministers have gone as far as to refuse to sign all marriage licences until they can marry all of their parishioners including same-sex couples because they believe that is the only way the can follow the current law and their religion. We have freedom of religion in this country, why do people think that their religion should have legal precedent over mine?

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage
I'm not sure about actual law, because civil unions -- and the potential laws about them -- are different in different places. But there is one major difference, and that's who presides over the ceremony. In a non-religious service, people like justices of the peace and ship's captains can perform marriages, despite having no religious affiliation. One would assume they could also perform civil unions. However, the converse is not true -- I would expect that the vast majority of religious leaders would not perform civil union ceremonies, instead presiding exclusively over "marriages".

Other than that, the words refer to a situation in which the couples are separate-but-equal. I'd like to see government get out of the marriage business altogether and instead offer civil unions to couples who wished to enter into a partnership -- religious people could get married if they wanted to, but this would have no legal meaning.

If there is no difference bewteen the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?
Why are you looking for logic? Religion itself defies logic.

Id just like to throw in my two cents here :-)

Is there any actual difference between civil unions and marriage
Personally there is no difference between the two. I mean one is performed in a church and the other is performed somewhere else.. They both do the same thing and thats combine two lovers

If there is no difference bewteen the two just what is the logic over arguing over the silly title of marriage?

The logic is the word marriage scares the religous crowd. They think that if they say "civil union" it dosent mean the same to the religious crowd. Like I said In reply #1 Marriage is defined by the lovers, not the country.

As I said according my religion it is wrong to treat same-sex marriage and herosexual marriage differently. There is a group of Unitarian Universalist ministers who believe that the current law is forcing them to be complicit in state sanctioned discrimination which is a violation of their religion. This group of ministers has decided that the only way they can legally follow their religion is if they refuse to sign any and all marriage licenses until they will be allowed to sign a marriage license for any of their parishioners including same-sex couples in their congregation (and because of how gay friendly UU churches are there are few who don't have any gay or lesbian couples). This group of ministers is not looked down on by their peers instead they are generally respected for having the courage to do this, and the current situation has put all of our ministers in a difficult situation, particularly those who are straight and married. The state of New York even arrested some our ministers for "sodomizing a marriage" because they where following what has become the statues-quo for us of performing the ceremony and allowing the state to recognize it or not it sees fit. If this is not a violation of the first amendment I don't know what is.

I wonder if civil unions would be sufficient to satisfy this group of ministers in that they were not still complicit in the states discrination in a way that violated their religion.

Fixed duplicate passages....-Amlord