Are you in favor of gay couples being able to get married, with all the full benefits and the name of such a union?
Are you in favor of gay couples being able to get "civil unions", with all of the legal properties of marriage (i.e. taxes, insurance, etc) but without it being called "marriage"?
Here's where (what I think is) a new idea comes in. Would you be in favor of the legal aspects of marriage being renamed as "civil unions" for both gay and straight couples, and make "marriage" (in name) a purely religious title with no legal bearing?
Enter (if you like) explanations or reasonings behind your choices, and/or leave a comment to that effect.
I was thinking about the recent decision to allow gay couples the full benefits of marriage under the law, only renaming it to be "civil unions" in that case, and thinking about the arguments that arose. It seems the primary argument from the gay rights side is that this is a "separate but equal" type of situation, in that gays don't get "marriage", they just get "civil unions". I also saw a news story indicating that a lot of people have problems with gay couples getting "married" because of the name of it and the religious significance (q.v. "sanctity of marriage") that is attached to it. So I thought, our government at the moment is endorsing what is really a religious institution, and applying religious rules to it - rules that apparently don't apply to the concept of "civil unions". So why not remove the religious designation behind the legal aspects - make the governmental institution named "civil union" in all cases, and apply it equally to all couples - and reserve "marriage" as a religious term, with which the government should have no interaction (apart from granting "civil union" status to "married" couples, etc and so forth). That was the thinking behind that third question... I'm not sure if anyone's considered that yet.
Feel free to link to this poll in journals, etc...