As a practical point it doesn't *matter* whether a state calls it "civil union" or "marriage." That has no bearing (currently) on whether or not another state chooses to recognize it. And it certainly doesn't change what the federal government does with respect to its recognition of civil unions vis-a-vis marriage.
Except there are already examples that they aren't equivalent, regardless of how you feel. I mean, suppose you moved from Vermont to Connecticut a few years ago and found your relationship with your spouse was not longer recognized -- this is exactly what happened when a lesbian couple who had a civil union in Vermont moved to Connecticut, which also had civil unions.
Further, it has been mentioned on here that some national employers in states with civil unions have refused to offer spousal benefits to those in civil unions because they are not married.
I just don't see the relevance "separate but equal" argument I've heard so many on this issue. I know of no one who supports legal same-sex civil unions who believes they should not have the exact same rights and responsibilities as what we call a same-sex married couple today. (Heck, I'd be all for getting rid of LEGAL recognition of marriage, making all of it a civil union and leaving another ceremony to be the church-blessed one. Maybe we shouldn't call that marriage either, just to agree to stop fighting over that word.)
And just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist. Washington, as mentioned, is an example of this. Prior to this year Washington had civil partnerships that offered some, but not all, of the protections of marriage. This year the Washington legislature amended the law to make civil partnerships have the same rights and benefits as marriage. And this is when Christian groups started petitioning to have the law overturned, their objection is precisely because they don't believe that gays should have all the rights of marriage, even under another name. And they got roughly 150,000 signatures to put it on the ballot.
I just think that the proponents of advancing gay rights in the secular world are doing themselves a disservice by insisting on the m-word if they prefer results over symbolism and principle. Almost all social and political movements advanced through incrementalism. Women were granted the right to vote on a state by state basis for decades until the passage of the 19th Amendment, for example. And I think the recent voter initiative in California probably passes if its proponents didn't reach for the m-word.
Again, I think this is a matter of perception on your part. For example, rather than fight for marriage or even civil union laws in the federal government, gay political groups have fought for things like inclusion in federal hate crime laws and, having gotten that passed, are now working toward non-discrimination laws. And the political process typically goes this way in most states. Not to mention, they are getting gay marriage laws passed on a state by state basis just like your 19th Amendment example. And I think every state that has passed gay marriage laws had some type of civil union law prior to the marriage law being passed.
Last, why have two separate
volumes of law that do the same thing? This is what you are proposing when it comes to having both civil unions and marriage. Not to mention the revisions that would have to be made to existing laws to include civil unions.
As for your not seeing the problems with "separate but equal", I think you'd feel differently if you were a small minority that did fall under different statutes than the majority. It becomes too easy for a legislature to tinker with the laws in on set of statutes but to "forget" to change one set of statutes or even openly and intentionally decide that it is just a minority and we need to save money on programs. Remember, segregation was intentionally set up to be separate but equal but it was quite easy to give the minority less money for schools and other programs when money was tight. And maybe you are right, maybe gays are being paranoid about this -- but again, if you were in their shoes I think separate but equal would scare you too.
