A rose by any other name...

As is common knowledge now, the LDS Church issued a (brief) statement on a gay marriage amendment. (Read all one line of it here)

Dave notices that the statement doesn't seem to preclude the notion of gay 'civil unions'. In my essay on gay marriage, I didn't talk much about civil unions, mostly because (1) the essay was too long as it was, and (2) the definitions of civil unions and how they would be implemented are still a little vague. What would the difference be between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union'--different subsets of benefits, or just a name change?

Looking at the definition for civil unions in Vermont (read about it here) every question of the form "How is [some legal aspect] handled under a civil union?" is answered by "Exactly the same way as marriages". In other words, there is no difference whatsoever between a Vermont marriage and a Vermont civil union other than the name (and the gender of its participants). Okay...but all that amounts to is a fancy name change--call them 'civil unions' or 'social partnerships' or whatever you want, it's still in essence, 'marriage'. This may in fact satisfy some, who would prefer gay partnerships are not associated with the word 'marriage' which is defined by God. Still, if their only objection to gay marriage was just the use of the word 'marriage' then I would wonder why they're opposed to gay marriage at all. Names don't matter...

As mentioned in my essay, the objections to gay marriage can be summarized more concretely than just using the sacred word 'marriage'--specifically, redistribution of a finite amount of money and benefits, larger case-load for the legal system with gay divorces, and financial discouragement from ending a gay relationship and pursuing a more spiritual lifestyle. Defining 'civil unions' does nothing to change any of these. (Companies are required in Vermont to provide all benefits given to marriage partners also to civil union partners, and divorces are handled in exactly the same way...) Call it what you want, 'civil unions' are 'marriages' and discussion of civil unions as a compromise to the gay marriage debate is really just a waste of time.

If an LDS representative says the Church is opposed to gay marriage and someone asks "What about civil unions?", he/she could very properly say, "What's the difference?". There's no reason for the Church to specifically discuss civil unions because the statements about marriage apply just as equally. You can't use some Clinton-style renaming of "sex" into something else in order to get around the law of chastity, for example. And yet, I fear people who are 'conservative yet accommodating' are going to talk themselves into supporting 'civil unions' while opposing gay 'marriage' without realizing that they are one and the same...