Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US gay couples “quicker to enter marriage than civil unions”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. When is america gonna drop the united states bit? the states are not united as you have to travel to different states just to get married and even then the state you live in may not recognise your marriage.

    1. jamestoronto 10 Nov 2011, 11:41am

      The US is not America. America is a huge land mass consisting of the North and South American continents. Calling the US America is the same as calling France Europe. While the French are Europeans, all Europeans are not French. The Pan-American Games involve all countries from Argentina and Chile north to Canada. The Organisation of American States (OAS) includes most independent countries of both continents, etc, etc. The country you call America is simply called the US or the States here. Just as other Europeans would be infuriated if France started calling itself the only Europe, so are most “pan-Americans” sensitive to the theft of the name by the US.

      1. ugff I was just being silly with the miss labelling of the word united but thank you the sociological geographic lesson :P

      2. PumpkinPie 10 Nov 2011, 3:59pm

        I’m pretty sure the landmass is called “the Americas”, not “America”. Thus, it’s pretty sensible to assume that when one sees the name “America” it is referring to the United States of America.

        Being partially of South American descent, I really don’t like the idea of two radically different continents ever being referred to by the same name. So, as far as I’m concerned, America (i.e. the USA) can keep that name. Just my 2 céntimos.

  2. It’s unsurprising because many gay couples don’t really want to enter into a second class institution which is how they see a civil union as compared to marriage.

  3. jamestoronto 10 Nov 2011, 11:48am

    Given the choice, few people or couples in this case would opt for second class status in any situation. It is like voluntarily accepting second-class citizenship. It’s one thing to settle for second best where there is no other option but where the real thing is available, people will almost always go for it.

  4. The state of New Hampshire also allows same-sex marriage.

    You have to laugh at the U.S. constitution in the context of “liberty and justice for all”. Yes, for heterosexuals only. United is hardly what I’d call it when gays aren’t free to marry in all 50 states and even in the 6 that allow it, same-sex marriages do not even have all of the federal rights and privileges conferred on heterosexual marriages automatically.

    This study isn’t surprising. Marriage equality is the trend and the varying degrees of legal unions for same sex couples are not equal and never will be.

    Marriage is a very conservative institution and all Tories should support it because of that. David Cameron made that quite clear during his party conference recently. Well said too.

  5. This is obvious,

    Entering into a civil union is acknowledging the 2nd class legal status of your relationship.

    Civil unions are 2nd class contracts for 2nd class citizens,

  6. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 4:05pm

    Some homophobes are willing to admit that gay people should have the same civil rights as heterosexual people, but not civil marriage.
    They claim that a “separate but equal”, “civil partnership” should be the answer. In fact, some gay people that have been bullied all their lives, will even support this kind of thinking, if they are made to believe this is the only option. People are entitled to call their own relationships whatever they like, but the state should not discriminate on the basis of orientation. Either the same, single institution of civil marriage should be available to both heterosexual and gay couples or both civil marriage and civil partnership should be available to both classes. The history of human rights shows that the notion of “separate but equal” is deeply flawed.

    1. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 4:06pm

      A different name for the same legal entity provides the more vicious homophobes a chance to use this as State-sanctioned discrimination, to claim that gay couples are inferior and to deny them established civil rights — even those that are specifically guaranteed by the civil partnership (http://goo.gl/jaQA5, Pink News, New Jersey gay couples sue for the right to marry). Equal access to civil marriage for gay couples would remove any doubt that we are all equal before the law. Anyone who wouldn’t like a “separate but equal” institution for interracial couples or religious couples, should similarly abhor the notion of “separate but equal” for gay couples.

    2. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 4:06pm

      Religious people who claim that marriage refers to holy matrimony for the purpose of procreation have the freedom to petition for their own “separate but equal” marriages to be called Holy Matrimony or breeding partnership if they want to make it sound different from civil marriage [Gay Agenda, 4:7]. It is unacceptable, however, for them to have a say on the civil rights of a minority in a secular state.

      [Gay Agenda, 3:16] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#3_16)

  7. “I’m gettin REGISTERED in the morning
    Ding don the bells are gonna chime ”

    Just does nt cut it for me either !!!! :)

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all