What I've been trying to say is it doesn't matter if they promise that civil union will get the same rights and benefits as marriage because in the end they will find some loopholes to make sure it won't be as equal as marriage, and I highly doubt that they're going to make it better than marriage.
I agree with you on this point. OTOH I also agree with the point made that 'marriage' is regarded by many people as being, by definition, between a male and a female. Actually my dictionary even says that. Although it isn't technically accurate (because we have had civil marriages for a fair while) marriage also has religious and cultural overtones for many people. Actually I've known a few straight couples over the years who lived together but didn't want to get married because of all the "baggage" that comes with it.
My preferred solution would be a civil union or contract or whatever you want to call it that is the basis for all legal parternships. Entering into this contract would be the
sole basis on which all legal rights relating to "couples" (property, inheritance, health and other work benefits and the doubtless hundreds of others you can think of) are established.
If this is done marriage would become an optional religous layer that individual churches can offer to whoever they choose (and withold it from whoever they chose). Obviously you would have to make sure the legislation made it illegal to differentiate against people who only had the civil union.
I'm not a lawyer (even I have standards
) so I don't know if an approach like this would be possible in either of our countries. Assuming it would be possible, would this work for you ? It seems to me it provides equality between straight and gay couples while allowing religious organisations to make their own choice as to what categories of people they marry.
Of course, the Christian right would never accept it, but that's because they tend to be homophobic bigots.
Confused ? You will be...