Why Can't Civil Union Be Seen as a Gigantic Leap Rather Than Not Enough - Page 2
Wiki opens its definition of marriage in this way, "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."
We might well win the fight for equality if we know what it is we want to be equal about. Were it enough to garner unto ourselves a position in the world that sanctioned civil unions as worded exactly as above but was to be called civil union. I would venture a wager that 70 percent of the disagreement would disappear. Why? Because straight couples would not think that something they have held as sacred going back thousands of years was about to be taken from them.
Let marriage be the ceremony that can be performed in churches or in offices housing justices of the peace and let the word, "marriage," be used to denote a
concept that applies legal civil unions to straight couples and let the phrase civil union be used as the legal rights that any two people have to form a bond and a contract.
Let's see if the Illinois Senate ratifies what the House has already crafted as a bill. I think that in many important ways this argument lands squarely at the intersection of State Street and Church Street, Main Street, U.S.A.