Civil union is an inevitable. We can differentiate CU from ‘marriage’ because of the religious connotations.
Religions emphasize that marriage is a sacred oath. Civil unions are legal partnerships.
If civil unions are ‘permitted’, then the gay community should not be the only beneficiaries.
Two orphaned sisters who find themselves single, by divorce, choice, widowhood, etc., should be able to join in civil unions for the same advantages: property inheritance, job benefits, pensions, insurance and so forth.
Any combination...elderly father and son living together, Mother and daughter, two middle aged ‘friends’ of any sex, etc., who find a civil union would provide legal and financial advantages should have the same access to this legal provision.
I agree. If there is a need for the legal provisions of "domestic partnership," on top of what current contract law already provides, then whether the couple or group is engaging in some kind of sexual activity should be irrelevant.
As a practical point, I question whether this legal provision is necessary, unless it forcibly (so to speak) tidies up the current stew of contract, power-of-attorney, estates-and-trusts, real estate, and other relevant law.
You are correct. I would suggest that access is already granted from a legal private and or business perspective -the term is partnership -in this case it would in essence be a non-profit private business relationship...
You rightly identify by implication the flawed premise underlying the legitimatizing efforts to institute homosexual marriage being one of sexual activity between the two parties who would 'partner'. Society does not grant two business partners that enter into a contracted partnership special privileges and accommodation if they have sex -why should two that enter into a private business contract be any different?
You carry this posit one step further by suggesting that sexual free partnerships comprised of elderly father and son living together, Mother and daughter, two middle aged ‘friends’ of any sex, etc., are just as valid as the homosexual flavor. In essence, orifice exploration adds nothing fundamentally substantive to the argument for or against...
I suggest you complete the task of carrying the arguments forward to their conclusion and realizing that civil unions are not inevitable. In reality, homosexual civil unions are non profit partnerships that may provide economic benefit to the parties but provide no economic benefit or value to society.
Society has spoken on this as evidenced for centuries in custom, tradition, institution, common law and codified law. The participants in the moral free market have decided that traditional marriage is valued by society while other partnerships although legal provide no value --they are nice, they are legal; however, they are no more worthy of societal privilege, subsidy, and reward than any other business or personal partnership contracted to accommodate and benefit its partners...