SINCE the creation of the term "civil union" by Vermont's legislative branch in 2000, there has been a discussion on whether a civil union is the right answer to the ongoing fight for the legalization of homosexual marriage. Although civil unions seem to be a pleasing compromise, there is overwhelming evidence that civil unions as an inappropriate solution. Creating civil unions as a separate but equal form of marriage is simultaneously an unjust, confusing compromise as well as a flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment.
There is massive, unnecessary confusion created by the rise of civil unions. First of all, the most important aspect of civil unions is that they are created based on state sovereignty: This means states decide whether they will allow civil unions. Right away, the most simple conflict is that different states have different ideas and beliefs about what a civil union is and what it entails. For example, if a civil union couple visits a state, and one partner in the relationship is seriously injured, will the visited state disregard the couple's rights, such as policies on visiting loved ones in the hospital? Also, while some states provide civil unions, the federal government does not, which creates a problem with joint state/federal benefits such as tax relief. A country divided will thus become a country divided and confused. The myriad of public policy questions indicates that the idea of civil unions creates problems instead of answers.
The institution of civil unions is inherently being discriminated against by not receiving the federal benefits of civil marriages. There are about 1,049 rights given to married couples that civil unions do not receive. Among these rights include the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, pension protections and social security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. As of now, states certainly have not ensured that civil unions and marriages are at least equal on paper, much less equal in practice. These differences are unfair, and the inaction to resolve them in order to equalize the two institutions sends a strong message that homosexuals are not legally equal. These deep structural and functional problems within the spurious institution of civil unions show, if nothing else, that civil unions are an inferior and weak compromise.
The creation of civil unions as a homosexual substitute for connubial arrangements is in violation of Article XIV, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: "no state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Civil unions are clearly not equally protected as seen with the difference of benefits that come with a civil union as opposed to a civil marriage. Also, constitutional precedent established that "separate but equal" isinconsistent with the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education). Although the Court specified that the decision was limited to public education, the same principles are in question here. Furthermore, even without the precedent to alleviate the application of the 14th Amendment to the quagmire at hand, by creating a separate (and unequal) institution, dubbed "civil unions," there is an unequivocal implication that homosexuals are not good enough to get "married," an implication that inherently contains underlying discriminatory assumptions. Through the creation of civil unions, there is a rather obvious constitutional agitation that eventually must be addressed, and, given current constitutional wording and precedents, the idea that civil unions will be upheld in the Supreme Court is unlikely.
Some proponents of civil unions may say that they are an excellent compromise because they concomitantly provide an option for gays while upholding the sanctity of marriage. The flaws with this argument are subtle, but very important. First of all, options are an improvement, yes, but unequal and inferior options cannot remain an answer. The combination of the created confusion, the unequal status and the constitutional flaws of civil unions make it an inefficacious public policy, structurally analogous to a racially segregated school system. Furthermore, the abstract concept of marriage's sanctity receives a serious reality check from simple statistics: 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, millions of spouse abuse cases are reported each year, as well as millions of child abuse cases and high illegitimate birth rates. Thus, claiming that marriage has an exclusive heterosexual "sanctity" is ambiguous, if not simply invalid, and is certainly no ground for discriminating against a proportion of the population.
In the heated debate for civil rights, there always seems to be a tendency to take a "separate but equal" compromise that is superficially tempting. But too often people forget that the goal is not to reach a middle ground between oppression and equality, but instead to demand what our beloved constitution ensures: Equal protection under law.
Sina Kian's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skina@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
