Why “Civil Unions” Aren’t Really Equivalent

I don’t know the legal context of this piece of news, but in many parts of Europe “civil union” basically means a civil marriage with a premarital contract, as it were, plus any other conditions tailored to suit the needs of the parties. Some say is marriage without all the disatvantages. And it’s not uncommon or stigmised or anything, see especially France, the case of Royal and Hollande, for instance, two proeminent policians with children etc but officially unmarried. The civil union it’s not equivalent to civil marriage, but whatever form it takes here and there the only difference is in the scope of the mutual obligations that it imposes on the parties.

From the story you linked to, it doesn’t seem to be the fault of the particular legal arrangement that the medics tried to ban him from the room since I don’t think they would have banned a – officialy or unofficially – women friend. I understand there’s a big debate in the US right, and I don’t know much about that, but whatever advantage or symbolic importance marriage has for gay people it is distinct from the more important question of social tolerence and acceptance.