Every now and then in the debate about marriage equality, someone will come up with an idea: Make civil unions for everybody. This would apply to all couples, same or opposite gender. It would promote equality without using the religiously-connotated term "marriage."
The idea in and of itself isn't a bad one. It's just never going to happen. And I'll tell you why.
First off, let me say it hasn't been about the word I've been after. It's about equal rights, equal status and equal dignity for myself and other same-gendered couples. So, using the term "civil union", if that's the same as what other, opposite-gendered couples used, is entirely fine by me in that case.
The problem would be the enormous lift it would take in order to make that happen with little will to do so. Let's riddle a moment and take a look at what that would entail.
First off, every state in the country would have to change their laws. The federal government would have to change their laws. Other countries that currently legally recognize "marriage" would have to change their laws. Or if you got married in, say, Australia, would that be recognized as "married" or as a "civil union.
I suppose the easy route to take would be instead of changing every instance of the word "marriage" to "civil union", you could pass one law that would say "marriages" would be recognized exactly like "civil unions" would be. But then you're not really replacing "marriage", you're just using "civil union" in addition to it. And so the heavy legislative lifting would be required.
Then there's the issues of the state constitutions. Thanks to the National Organization for Marriage, in 29 states, the term "marriage" is defined in their state constitution. In 20 of those states, "civil union" or "any other legal term equal or similar to marriage" is banned in their constitution. In other words, the state constitutions would have to be amended again in order to make it happen.
Finally, there's the political will in order to make all of this happen. As it turns out, it's a pretty small group of people who want it. Most people are either a) All for marriage equality for same-gendered couples or b) Against all legal recognition of relationships of same-gendered couples. It's only a small minority who are for some legal recognition of relationships of same-gendered couples and opposed to using the term "marriage". I mean, yes, it could be tens of millions of Americans, but that's compared to the estimated 50%+ of Americans who are for letting gay people get "married". Yes, there is also a sizable group of people opposed to either, but many of them are not going to take up the will in order to pass "civil unions for all" until they're backed into a corner where they have to legalize some recognition for gay couples, but oppose "marriage". And those who oppose any recognition and live in states where it's not yet an issue aren't going to take it up either. And places that have legalized civil unions for gay couples only have done so only where there was some impediment to doing so (such as a constitutional amendment banning marriage or insufficient political will to legalize marriage equality). These are all marginal cases, not some overwhelming movement. In fact, only 2 of the 50 states have civil unions without marriage equality, Colorado and Oregon, and only there because "marriage" is banned in their constitution. Nevada has domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage, but it's not called "civil unions". Illinois and Rhode Island had civil unions, but changed those to "marriage" once the political will to do so presented itself.
The issue has been discussed seriously a couple times in the legislature. In Minnesota, a state without marriage equality or a constitutional ban on it, found that when they were discussing marriage equality, a few in the middle seriously took the issue of "civil unions for all" up. It was put to a vote on the entire floor, and only about 10% of the legislative body voted in favor of it. Those opposed to any recognition and those opposed to secondary status defeated the measure overwhelmingly.
Unlike those who favor one extreme or the other (no recognition versus full marriage rights), there is no national group organized to make it so. There is no fundraising. There are no Facebook pages or Twitter feeds dedicated to it. The political, legal and social giants have divided themselves into the two camps, and very few, except those who are still evolving on their stance on this issue, are there to champion "civil unions for all" to fruition. I don't even think a #CUFA hashtag would even ever be trending.
So no, in and of itself, there isn't anything wrong with civil unions for all. Except the enormous lengths and the complete lack of political will it would take to make it happen. It's not a bad idea. It's just never going to happen.
