Civil Unions mean marriage without the word. All of the things that people are claiming civil-unions are about are already available: Power of Attorney, Wills, contracts, etc.
Fine, if you want to argue that this should be banned at the state level and that Bush's position is correct (which it may well be), but don't give us this nonsense that "civil unions" are ok, just, needed and right.
When legislation is brought up in the states for a vote on civil unions, it is encumbent upon that states' voters to inform themselves on the wording and ramifications of the legislation. I would vote AGAINST civil unions if the only reason for them was to equate homosexual partnerships with marriage, like the VT case. I know that there are legal ways in place right now for homosexuals to get all the 'benefits' that married couples have as far as medical coverage, hospital visitation, etc., so for the most part they are unnecessary. I was simply pointing out that states DO have the right to bring up legislation allowing for civil unions, and the voters of those state that have the right to reject them, just as the President stated.