I've heard the "civil unions for all" idea tossed around in several circles, sometimes for the reasons you described, sometimes just to shut all the complainers up. I think it's a great idea with three complications:
1) The transition period is going to be PAINFUL.
2) Marriage law is state-based, so either all 50 states have to be on-board for it or the Supreme Court has to step in and make a ruling like the one you described.
3) The Supreme Court already stepped in on the subject of marriage in Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) and declared it a fundamental right. They'd likely either have to overrule that statement or say "civil unions cover the same thing" before this plan would be possible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 01:44 pm (UTC)1) The transition period is going to be PAINFUL.
2) Marriage law is state-based, so either all 50 states have to be on-board for it or the Supreme Court has to step in and make a ruling like the one you described.
3) The Supreme Court already stepped in on the subject of marriage in Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) and declared it a fundamental right. They'd likely either have to overrule that statement or say "civil unions cover the same thing" before this plan would be possible.
As for the "fruit" comment... :P