i’m really confused. :(

They need a miricle. All we need is patience.

Apparently, the civil union arrangement there consists of two people (of the same sex or opposite sex) filing a petition that results in the couple being formally recognized as a unit in most of the same ways as a married couple. If they decide to call it quits, they file another petition to dissolve the partnership and there are no property/alimony/etc. consequences. In other words, they handle the breakup and division of property the way many co-habitating straight and gay couples have always done, sometimes well and sometimes messy. I think this non-religious/less legal BS option is very appealing, and apparently many straight couples have embraced it, showing (again? still?) that the social constructions around formal/long-term/economic/romantic partnership and commitment are ever-evolving.

I say separate the legal recognition and benefits from the religious mess and let people choose what kind of “marriage” fits for them. Of course, underneath all the moral hand-wringing and Bible-quoting and predictions of decay and ruin is probably a lot of financial concern that more folks would then be eligible for benefits and health care and lots of other things that gee, shouldn’t most people have access to regardless of marital status? But then that’ s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish…

“Jill, you can’t argue this while at the same time saying these organizations should be forced to treat their married employees preferentially. Because that’s also discrimination, and they’re subsidized by all tax-payers, not just the married ones.”

Not exactly. Laws treat people differently based on their circumstances. That’s not necessarily discriminatory in the sense that “anti-discrimination law” uses the word. I agree that stuff like health benefits should be divorced from marital status, but that’s a different issue.

The problem here is that “marriage” is defined to exclude permanent householding partnerships between two people of the same gender. This is discrimination against gay people. They cannot enter into the institution of marriage, and their identical circumstances are excluded from the protection that straight people enjoy as couples.

The issue here is that this discriminatory legislation may change, but religious bigots want an exemption from progress. They want to be able to discriminate against certain marriages–or recognized partnerships–that would be legally valid.

And, really, how is that different than it is now? If a Church in Florida right now wants to discriminate by not offering equal medical care to their queer employees’ families, they have the legal right to do that.

And the benefits of federal recognition of civil unions are pretty huge. For example, I think the cruelest homophobic law in the US right now, is that our federal immigration law keeps apart same-sex couples where one is foreign born. This “compromise” would give couples in that situation a way around the problem. There are lots of other areas of Federal law — social security survivors benefits is a big one, taxes another, survivorship another — where this law could help people.

If this was saying that we’d have to give up on fighting for full marriage equality, I’d laugh at it and say not on your fucking life. But it doesn’t say that; it’s just suggesting that we move to a different status quo while we continue the marriage fight. And I think it’s a status quo that would actually be better for many same-sex couples who could use more equality under federal law.

Two more points: This would pull out the rug from under the nonsensical “teh gays will force your church to hold gay weddings” argument, which would be good for us. And I think it would be a stepping stone towards a universal federal civil union law — so that even people living in Texas and other states that are decades away from state civil unions (let alone marriage), could get recognized federally and gain those benefits.

I think a lot of it may depend on how far away you think we are from full equal marriage rights. If you think it’s just around the corner, then a compromise like this makes no sense. If you think, like me, that it’s just around the corner in some states but decades away for the country as a whole, then I think a proposal like this, which could add substantially to people’s legal rights until we have full equality, is worth considering.

The problem here is not that legal marriage is inherently religious, because it’s not. (If anything, across history and cultures, it’s been an economic arrangement.) The problem is that fundies are claiming it is, and using this to justify denying it to couples based on what’s in their pants. And as long as we accept their framing of this issue, we’re going to have a harder fight for social acceptance.