What's the difference in the eyes of the government?

What are we talking about when we discuss "civil unions"? I think of a civil union as the legal/contractual/secular side of marriage. What do you get with a marriage that you don't get with a civil union? Would a heterosexual couple be treated any differently in the eyes of the government if they were joined via civil union vs. marriage?

Leaving people who are gay out of the equation for a minute, what's the difference between a couple joined by civil union vs. atheists married by a judge?

You should remember that I said that marriage is a religious construct and belongs to the church. Your right, the civil union is more of a legal status. I am supporting civil unions becuase homosexuals don't have the rights and benefits that hetrosexual couples do in the status quo. Yet, religious folk object to gay marriage on moral grounds and thus make gay "marriage" impossible to reconcile. By seperating the two, I believe I can find a middle ground that allows gays and lesbians the rights they are entitled to by the equal protection clause. This is why the government should be concerned to anwser your question.

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton

athiests wouldn't need a marriage. As it is sanction by god (last time I checked they aren't particularly big fans of him) and they don't need that. Liberty, I am not sure this post is clear as the last one I just sent so go ahead and ask another question if you don't get where I am coming from.

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton

Hey!!! Isn't he cool?!

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton