Why Civil Unions Aren't True Marriage Equality

The problem with Civil Unions for gay & lesbian couples is that it sounds like a great idea in theory, but in reality civilly united couples are still not granted the same rights and recognition that married heterosexual couples receive.

In New Jersey, where same-sex couples are granted civil unions that are supposed to confer all the statewide legal rights of marriage, many couples are finding out that their employers are not honoring their union.

In one specific case (quoted from an Advocate News article posted on Gay.com, April 16, 2007):

Jennifer Bonfilio, whose partner is an employee at New Jersey Carpenters Funds, is planning to enter into a civil union and said the company won't extend health benefits to her.

"I called to ask if they were going to be honoring that law and providing me with the same coverage that they would any married couple, and I was told no," Bonfilio said.

"The woman on the phone actually said to me: 'We do not have to obey New Jersey law.'"

Another article I read, also posted on Gay.com on July 9, 2007, said that:

United Parcel Service is the latest firm to deny health care coverage to civil-union partners in New Jersey, Newark's Star-Ledger newspaper reported.

Although the company gives employee partner benefits to married gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, it denies coverage to their New Jersey counterparts because state law there does not call them "spouses."

I could surf the web for days and I'm sure I'd find dozens, if not hundreds, of other cases in which companies are using legal loopholes and terminology to skirt around the law and deny gay and lesbian couples their full legal rights.

Not only are civil unions a separate but unequal substitute for the full legal rights of marriage, but the limited rights they provide only extend as far as the state line. If one partner living in New Jersey works for a company in nearby Delaware, Pennsylvania, or New York then there is no legal reason that any of those states have to honor their civil union. And, even worse than the medical benefits problem, is the fact that if said partner gets into a car accident on their way to or from work, then it's likely they would be taken to a nearby out-of-state hospital and their partner would lose the right to make medical decisions for them if they're incapacitated. In some hospitals they could even be prevented from seeing their legal spouse.

Changing a few words around seems like an easy way to offer rights to the gay and lesbian community without incurring the wrath of Christian fundamentalists, conservatives, and other opponents of gay marriage. But, in reality, it's like throwing a dog a bone to stop them from barking. It will placate everyone for a little while, but it never solves the underlying problem.

The real problem is that gay marriage needs to be dealt with on a national level. By dropping it in the laps of the states to make their own laws, the United States government despicably skirted the issue and created this continually changing landscape of loose interpretation and shaky legality in which gay unions are subject to different rights and regulations depending on their location. It would ALMOST be better for gays and lesbians to not have any martial rights at all than to have a shifting illusion of them. I have to admit that state-issued civil unions are better than nothing, but the more people that buy into the wordplay that separates them from marriage, the longer it's going to take for gays and lesbians to get true equal rights.