Civil Unions are the Current "Separate But Equal"

I compared this to black America's struggle in school systems. They were white funded. They received less funding, less books, and the buildings were in much poorer shape. They were considered separate but equal because they finally had their own education system. Civil unions are giving the same message. Finally, legally joined together! But when taking a closer look, less benefits are received. Marriages have 1,138 different federal rights. Just a few are as follows: Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children. Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. What about when it's a civil union? As states before, civil unions have their rights too, those are also covered in a marriage. Civil unions ONLY cover state and are NOT recognized by the federal government. Benefits are being lost there. Marriage has been established a civil right by the Supreme Court under the US Constitution's federal civil rights law. No matter how high the percentage that takes place in a church is, under the law it's still a right. It is the couple's and the religious place's choice where the ceremony takes place, but that does not eliminate that it is a right declared by the Supreme Court. The purpose in the milk and juice argument is it's a preference. What you prefer has no reason to be looked down upon. When looking at relationships preferences occur such as height, blonde/brown haired, personalities/looks, blue/brown eyes, ect. Just as you may prefer someone who is short, another guy's preference may be a guy. It's HIS preference. Marriage did not originate from the church. It did not enter the church legally until 1563. As Catholicism became powerful in Europe is when it entered. All I stated was the church defined it as "one man and one woman." In A.D. 54 to 68 there are two documented male and male marriage ceremonies. They were not common but did happen. By 342 Catholicism started being involved with marriages without any legal binding. That was when homosexual unions were outlawed. In order to be married you need a license, you do not need a wedding. Civil unions can be a way that stays as an option for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. If the couple prefers that over a marriage, that is the couple's choice. I have nothing against civil unions. There is a difference in "I support gay civil unions" but when asked about "gay" marriage doesn't support that than civil unions/marriages for all. It is unequal for it to be there for one, but not the other. http://civilliberty.about.com... http://usmarriagelaws.com... http://www.now.org... http://www.vahistorical.org... theweekmagazine.com