There is no reason that homosexuals can't marry, but the concession being made by a lot of states are legally binding "civil unions". The idea is that this will satisfy everyone involved, but the entire point is that marriage is the ultimate symbol of a monogamous relationship, and gays, as consenting, loving adults, have every right to use the word.
If two people want to be married, let them be married legally. There should be no distinction regarding benefits and symbolism. Neither should there be any distinction with regard to the risks and problems and the issue of divorce that is bound to come up just as often as it does now.
There is a huge difference between a civil union and a marriage. Both are looked at differently under the law and, more importantly, both are looked at differently by the people who are ruled by the law. All citizens are equal, and to call the union of two consenting adults something different just because of their gender is ridiculous. If people want to be married, they should be allowed to be married.
A civil union is still the exact same thing as a marriage. It is called a civil union to dry and dumb it down and make it seem inferior to all the god fearing, narrow minded people in this country that for some reason think that it is a sin to be happy and to be with the person you care about most.
Marriage is a religious ceremony - its a ceremony that goes back for thousands of years based in religion. Marriage is a religious word which, though it means something completely non-religious in the US political scene, can be validly said to be religious inherently. In order to solve the issue definitely, all marriages - gay and straight - should be civil unions, with the label of marriage left to each religion.
While civil unions deprive gay people, they don't deprive the symbol of marriage. Civil unions only add to the frustrations for gay couples in the United States. These unions don't make marriage any less meaningful, and gay couples deserve the right to marry whoever they'd like in this country today.
No, I do not believe that civil unions unfairly deprive the symbol of marriage, because people should be allowed to marry who ever they desire. It is unfair to tell so one who is gay, that their love for their partner can not be recognized because of their sexual orientation.
Civil unions do not undermine marriage symbol at all. It is two people who are in love choosing to spend their lives together. This should not be taken away from any individual just because it is different than what other people beleive. They are not hurting anyone and just looking to live their lives.
In my opinion, marriage is a right that should be given to all law abiding citizens. We do not deny marriage rights bases on religion or race, so why should we deny them based on sexual preference. Gay marriage would also solve problems of over-crowded orphanages. When same sex partners decide to have a child, they cannot create they usually adopt one that has been abandoned.
I'm writing a paper on this for my Policy Making and Evaluation class right now at Penn State. Its not as if the idea of civil unions is a new concept created to satisfy the desire of same-sex couples to share the same benefits as marriage (employer health insurance, legal recognition, tax status, inheritance tax exemption, ect). Straight couples have gone down the "civil union route" for decades. Throughout my research I found examples, from the earliest times of the gay rights movement that the gay community opposed the whole idea of marriage as a heterosexist institution and just wanted equality of rights as a couple. That proves a theory I have had for years, that its not about equal rights anymore. The movement is trying to stir controversy in the largest opponents of same-sex marriage, traditionalists and religious institutions. Civil Unions have always been an option regardless of sexual orientation. To achieve equal rights between couples, expanding the protections of Civil Unions would have met little to no opposition. For those who argue that marriage is a State institution to be separated from the Church under the First Amendment, a religion based argument may fall short. But the "symbol" OF marriage is most certainly a religious argument. There is a difference in the institution of something and what symbolism is associated with an institution. Straight marriages were not recognized equally between each of the 13 colonies, and neither are Civil Unions today. Concurrent recognition passed at the federal level for the expansion of Civil Union rights would denounce the idea that Civil Unions are inferior to marriages. The "Separate but Equal" argument made by those who try to apply the Civil Rights Act to the gay rights movement is a weak one at best. The color of a persons skin is a genetic trait that cannot be avoided. Because of that, generational grievances can be documented historically to call for the Civil Rights Act. An example can be the now disregarded "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. A black man cannot "pass off" as being white, but a gay individual looks /acts no differently than a straight person. A gay individual is not denied any constitutional right or public service based on appearance. For discrimination to occur they have to "flaunt" being gay or bring attention to there sexual orientation to be treated differently. If the symbol of marriage is the matter at hand, its simply symbolizes the rights and protections of an institution. If Civil Unions were granted equal rights, the symbol of marriage would not be the question anymore. It would be a matter of federal recognition for the protection of 2 institutions, that would be subcategories under one perception of rights