This article was passed along to me today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?_r=1&hp

I can't help but wonder at Civil Unions. I mean, just look at the comments on the article wondering how many couples "upgrade to marriage", saying it's for "commitment phobes" and so on and so on.

The commentors are automatically equating civil unions and marriage or pointing out the legal difference between the two without taking that further step and reasoning out why many gay couples aren't satisfied with the "separate but equal"-ness that civil unions have about them. It even plainly states in the article that civil unions confer most but not all of the rights of traditional marriage upon those that enter into it.

I get that some people don't want the full contract of marriage, but notice that most of those couples mentioned were heterosexual...in other words those to whom marriage is automatically available. So civil unions open up more options for heterosexual couples and only ever-so-slightly raise the legitimacy of homosexual relationships.

So, we're stuck with this as an option. We're settling, in other words. And, once we get this right it's turned against us in an argument running thus, "You have civil unions, why can't you be happy with that?"

-Because it's not the same.
-Because most states don't recognize civil unions.
-Because most states don't recognize civil unions granted in other states.
-Because it's only a fraction of state-given rights as compared to civil marriage.
-Because there are no federal rights granted with a civil union.
-Because there are no consistent guidelines for a 'divorce' from civil unions.

Those are just some of the reasons I won't settle for one....no matter how appealing.