Societal impact aside, the recognition of civil unions for the allocation of federal benefits such as social security, medicare, pensions, etc. and taxes would have enormous financial implications. The entitlement programs are going bottoms up now. This would hasten their demise or add even further to the tax burden to keep them treading water for a little longer.
True, but it will happen eventually in any event and perhaps, the sooner the better.
The reason I posted my observation was from a number of experiences. A particular one was with a set of brothers. They were both born with an heredity skin decease that frankly made their faces "difficult" to look at. The younger brother was far worse than the older, but both would make children want to run away. It was sad, very sad. Both worked, the older brother having a far better job and social/coping skills. Thee younger brother was pretty much shunned by society and responded psychologically accordingly. He is a nice guy when you talk to him, but psychologically, a total basket case.
To make a long story short, for obvious reasons neither ever married, their parents died when they were relatively young, and the brothers lived together as the only family either ever had. The older brother who was the major bread winner for the 'family' died suddenly a few years ago. For all intents and purposes, it was a "husband" dying and leaving a widow. The younger brother was completely decimated. Those two were all alone together and were the only family either had and now he was alone.
Enter the tax man.
And then there was all of the money the older brother had paid into social security of which he never collected a dime. I guess it all goes to some grandmother imported from Mexico or Bangladesh who managed to get papers, or whatever, but it would only seem logical, (and a word I hate to use, FAIR) that the only family the man ever had, should be able to have some benefit from his brother's years of involuntary investment in social security.
I see no reason that a pair of brothers in that situation, (or elderly couples even if unrelated (MM/ MF/ or FF) should not be able to declare they are a civil union and have both the rights and the responsibilities for each other as a typical married couple. In our oversexed society, we seem to forget that their are strong and very commited relationships that have nothing to do with sex.
Civil unions should have nothing to do with sex. If the Federal and state governments are going to tax assets after death while giving or withholding benefits based on marital status, those who aren't married but have accepted the same legal and financial responsibilities and obligations for another person should also be eligible for those same benefits.
I honestly don't think that many gays will ever fit into those kind of committed relationships. Their push for gay marriage has nothing to do with commitment to other individuals, but only with seeking societal validation for their perversions. That will pass when we all learn to just shrug our shoulders when they attempt to outrage us.