The New York Times printed a nice long article today about same-sex couples insisting that civil unions aren't enough because they don't provide the same benefits and social acceptance as marriage. Gee, ya think?

Though such arrangements were created, often under court mandate, with a promise of treating same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples, many gays and lesbians say they have not delivered and can never do so because separate institutions are inherently unequal. Many also resent being denied use of the word marriage, which they say carries intangible benefits, prestige and status.

I can't believe that people can be so naive as to think that civil unions are fair. Newsflash: there is no such thing as "separate but equal." A few upsetting examples are given in this article, including one about a woman who was in a civil union giving birth in the hospital. A nurse asked her if she was single, married, widowed, or divored. When the woman said she was in a civil union, the nurse checked "single." Another couple in a civil union told a story about how an airport refused to process them as one household, and sent them back to customs to be processed separately.


Civil unions just aren't enough. They downplay the relationship of a same-sex couple, and they force same-sex couples into inferiority. It's as if others are not taking their relationship seriously. LGBT people should not be made into second-class citizens. Refusing them the ability to be legally married is discrimination. Plain and simple. Said one man:

"Being in a civil union is not the same as married. If it was, they would call it marriage. I don't know anybody who would give up their marriage for a civil union."