If civil unions give exactly the same benefits and don't hurt anyone's feelings, then why would you argue against them. Gay Marriage, if it has to occur, shouldn't be forced to take place in a church. If you really want to argue for gay rights, then go to somewhere that it is really needed like the middle east or Russia.
The government shouldn't recognize any marriage as it is religious and their should be a separation between church and state. Instead a civil Union or union of love should be used as it is not religious and is inclusive for all humans of all genders. Enough of this government recognizing religious marriage.
The great compromise allowed for a bicameral legislative and that allowed Congress to function as it does today. There should be compromise because Christians hate it, Muslims hate it, Jews hate it, probably 75% of the world hates to use the term "marriage" used for gays. So the question is 75% of the world , or 25%. It should be the 75% if you ask me and any smart people
Civil unions, I feel, are a nice middle ground. Those in favor of gay marriage get what they want and those who don't want the word marriage, generally having a religious connotation, used get what they want. I don't like the idea of blanketing the issue so one side must give in to the whims of the other.
The government gets involved in marriage in order to give people tax benefits.
If one type of marriage is called a "civil union", then ALL types of marriage should be called a "civil union". There's absolutely no reason to draw an arbitrary line. It's just completely unneeded.
Besides, comprising on rights is just begging for trouble. Just look at the 3/5 compromise.
Two people in love have a right to get married. I thought right wingers didnt like the government being involved in our business? So they shoild get out if our business and let people marry who they want. Do you know what the compromise on civil rights for African Americans was? No slavery, no equal rights. Compromise? Jim Crow Law. Seperate but equal segregation. No. These are peoplea lives and rights. Let them get married and stay out if their business. It doesnt affect you.
States are falling to gay marriage every week it seems. Obviously it's not actually going at that rate, but nobody will dispute that the fight is in favor of those in favor of gay marriage. Therefore, as a supporter of this, I see no reason to compromise. If I were against it, I can see why you would want a compromise: to cut your losses.
Whoever doesn't support gay marriage can keep their mouths shut because the only thing that's holding these innocent people from getting married is brain-washing and religion. Homosexuals are people, too. They get homework, they get stressed, and they have a heart. Blacks, whites, women, men, homosexuals and heterosexuals, we are all equal. If they love somebody, marry them, because they are willing to make that commitment. How would you straight people like it if you couldn't marry your girlfriend/boyfriend? You love them oh so much, yet, the only thing close enough to marriage is an idiotic compromise to a civil union, which basically means the government hasn't really recognized you as a couple yet. Put yourselves in their shoes. Love is love, and nobody can change it, not even religion. If God doesn't like gays (which is the main arguement for religious people), then why did he create them? For those religious folks that are okay with gay marriage, I salute you, because you recognize these people as your equals, and that's how it's supposed to be.
There is no such thing as "separate but equal" and history has shown this many times. You cannot compromise which rights the citizens of a secular nation can and cannot have, otherwise things are not really equal. There is no logical reason to deny same sex couples to the right to marriage and all of the rights that come with it.
First off we have won, our victory is almost assured and since our opponents never offered a compromise before we have on reason to create one now. A compromise is for a stalemate or when the conflict would be too great. However we have clearly won and the only reason they are offering this now is because they want to cut their losses.
Why is this question being asked now? Why not 25 years ago? The religious are asking to compromise because they are about to lose. Yet when the felt like they were on the winning side, they had no desire to compromise. Why give them something they wouldn't give you? Don't compromise, take the win. The other side would've taken the win and left you with nothing.
To be able to say that an individual has a spouse and that they are married by law should be more widely considered a right to which all should be entitled. There are those who consider the religious connotation behind it, but this brings in an issue of separation between church and state. This argument is further invalid by the fact that some religions - not a lot in common practice, to be fair - do accept gay wedlock and have for a very long time. This is not including the denominations of more major religions, such as Christianity, that accept it. The world is changing, and all should have the right as human beings to marry whom they choose and be seen as equals to those who marry someone of the opposite sex.
Civil unions are comparable to the 'separate but equal' doctrine that justified racial segregation in the 60's, the difference here is that the law is targeted towards gays and lesbians instead of African Americans.
The truth is that with equality comes change. While that change may disturb our traditional ways, it is necessary if we want everyone to have TRULY equal rights.