The union could come with things like implied power of attorney and certain tax benefits similar to marriage in some respects, but different in others. This way, marriage stays marriage (life long union between one man and one woman) and is designed to be the foundation of a family, and other folks not interested in that arrangement can still face life's challenges as part of a team rather than alone (and are thus less likely to end up on public assistance). Everyone wins.
So long as civil unions are considered same sex “marriage” for gay people, this pointless battle over the word “marriage” will never end.
Excellent clarifications. Thanks!
This makes perfect sense. After all, the homosexual activists started this 'marriage' fight because of the fact that their 'partners' were not allowed to visit them in the hospital and make decisions for them, if the family of the sick partner didn't agree. There were always legal avenues to get what the homosexuals wanted, but their activists wanted to destroy the entire idea of marriage as we know it, so they've framed their fight as a 'civil rights' struggle.
As you mentioned in the first paragraph of your original post, the union could be between any two persons, and the idea of being able to do so to help economically is a great idea. There would be a steep educational curve, however, to define these 'civil unions' in a way that doesn't involve sexual identity. I think, once understood, they'd be very well received. They would be especially useful for older people who may need to join forces to be able to survive on limited incomes.