Respectfully, this isn't news. ~55% +/- 5% have supported civil unions for a long time:
The fact-within-a-fact on general public opinion is that so many view marriage as different from civil union, and seek to withhold marriage rights from same sex couples.
I just cracked open the new issue of Reason that arrived in the mail, and who do I see on page 12 but Dan Savage! Talking surreptitious sex by public officials, of course.
Good to see you in such an august publication, Dan.
I'm in favor of civil unions for opposite-sex couples. Uncle Sam can't "marry" anybody.
How encouraging that 55% of the country believes I am eligible for equal protections and due process and full faith and credit.
How kind of them to think me a citizen worthy of constitutional rights.
I wonder if any of them will lift a fucking finger to make it happen, or if this will just be more ENDA-like incremental bullshit.
They have theirs - marriage and divorce and remarriage rights no matter what any religious organizations think of it - so eventually I can have mine if I can figure out how to make them give it to me.
What do you think I am - some kind of transgendered person? I have rights!! It's my turn!!
Word to Cat in Chicago.
"I wonder if any of them will lift a fucking finger to make it happen..."
I guess David and Cat answered my question. It doesn't matter that they can get married or not and disdain the idea of it in between divorces...they can have ideological purity and still maintain a worldly hipness by looking the other way.
In other words: ENDA.
Just like, "who put the T in LGBT? you can say, "why would gays want to be married anyway? you have it better just the way you are."
followed by the sound of hands being washed...
Actually, civil unions aren't exactly the same as a marriage. In a marriage, you get federal and state benefits. In a civil union, you'd only get state benefits. But you've got to start somewhere, right?
"But you've got to start somewhere, right?"
Where did you start?
Were Civil Unions the path followed by different sex couples until marriage was created, or is that path reserved for the class of people that have to prove themselves first?
Kinda like ENDA...LGB people have to start with employment protections until T persons have suffered enough.
"Where did you start?"
All I meant was that having some rights is better than having no rights at all. It's a step in the right direction. I never said it was fair, or that same-sex couples should be grateful that some states legalize civil unions, and settle for just that. If you settle for civil unions, then you'll never be allowed to legally marry.
It used to be that women weren't allowed to work outside the home because they "weren't smart enough". Eventually, they were allowed to get jobs, but they weren't allowed equal pay, and they were only allowed to work in certain fields. But at least it was better than before. However, those women didn't settle for just that. They kept fighting for more rights, and now women can work wherever they want, and they get paid just as much as a guy would in that position. "Starting somewhere" doesn't mean you stop there and wait for other people to change things. It just means that progress is being made.
Disappointing as civil unions are, it is a less inequitable system than what we have now.
People like Patrick come back in the next life as fly-covered starving Somali children.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).