3 ms·
> 2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero. What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unio
by RangerScience 8y ago
> 2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero.
What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference - but people still fight for marriage when they can only have civil unions.
Even if you got rid of all the legal and pay advantages to marriage, people still find it valuable and enriching. It may be an ephemeral benefit, but it's still articulable.
- loeg 8y ago> what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference Yep, there are/where legal distinctions (sort of irrelevant now in the US with federalized same-sex marriage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States . The main problem is that unlike marriages, there is no requirement that states recognize civil unions granted in other states, because: > The federal government does not recognize these unions. Not a direct legal distinction, but: > Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal', critics say they segregate same-sex couples by forcing them to use a separate institution.
- RangerScience 8y agoDid not know that it wasn't a federal thing! Thanks for teaching me. And yeah, my point is about the "separate but equal" sort of thing - it's not a legal distinction, but it's one people definitely care about.
- astura 8y agoThe question was what's the benefit for a taxpayer footing the bill, not the individual benefiting.