- Argument‹2 of 2
Civil unions provide the best of both worlds
Civil unions offer a compromise that enables all those who advocate for and against same-sex marriages to be able to keep their stand. While a compromise does not scream equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
The argument
The civil-union position is advanced as a settlement rather than as a victory for either side of the marriage debate, and its appeal lies in what each party would actually be giving up. For same-sex couples, the substance of the claim is not the word but what the word carries. Marriage confers a package of legal entitlements, covering inheritance, taxation, next-of-kin status, property, and the treatment of children, and alongside them an expressive function, the public recognition that this relationship is a committed partnership of the same kind that others enter. A civil union can be constructed to deliver both. The legal components can be written into statute directly, and the expressive component follows from the state formally recognising and solemnising the relationship rather than ignoring it. For those who oppose gay marriage, the objection is typically not to same-sex couples receiving legal protections but to a change in what marriage itself is taken to be. Some ground that objection in religious teaching about the nature of the institution; others in concerns about child-rearing. In either case the concern attaches to the definition of marriage, not to the distribution of legal rights. A separate civil-union status leaves that definition untouched, so the sanctity and institution of marriage, as they understand it, is maintained. The argument, then, is that the two sets of concerns are not in direct competition once they are separated out. One side wants the rights and the recognition; the other wants an institution preserved. Civil unions can give everyone what they want, which is why proponents hold that same-sex couples should be allowed to enter them.
Context
The best legislative outcome is always some form of compromise between the two sides that gives everyone what they want.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Any discrepancy between the legal rights of a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple surmounts to discrimination. Therefore, civil unions are still a form of discrimination as they do not grant the same legal rights of marriage to a gay couple as a heterosexual couple. Civil unions also don’t bring the same non-governmental benefits. The private sector often treats those in civil unions as being single, preventing access to lower insurance premiums, healthcare benefits employment opportunities. While civil unions offer an attempt to provide homosexual relationships with marital rights, they can cause as many problems as they solve. Creating a new marital status (single, married, or in a civil partnership) will instantly flag a gay individual to prospective employers, government authorities or medical practitioners. Not only can this cause some unwanted outings, it opens the door for discrimination. The only way to avoid this is by giving same-sex couples the ability to marry.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Civil unions don't give all sides what they want.