Hubbry Logo
Civil unionCivil unionMain
Open search
Civil union
Community hub
Civil union
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Civil union
Civil union
Civil union
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Not to be confused with Domestic partnership.
Part of the LGBTQ rights series
Marriage

Recognized

Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Minimal recognition
See also
Notes
  1. ^ a b Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
  2. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in Tokelau or the associated states of the Cook Islands and Niue.
  3. ^ Same-sex marriage is also legal in the Crown Dependencies of Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Jersey, and the British Overseas Territories of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Same-sex marriage is neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  4. ^ a b Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations of the US. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
  5. ^ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights in Israel. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
  6. ^ a b c d The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
  7. ^ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
  8. ^ Guardianship agreements confer some limited legal benefits in China, including decisions about medical and personal care.
  9. ^ Hong Kong provides inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
  10. ^ Indian courts have recognized guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
  11. ^ Most Japanese cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
  12. ^ Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse provide residency rights in Namibia.
  13. ^ Romania provides hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
LGBTQ portal
Gay couple in Croatia, which allows civil partnerships but not same-sex marriage.
Family law
Family
Marriage and other unions and status
Validity of marriages
Dissolution of marriages
Children's issues
Private international law
Family and criminal code
(or criminal law)
Part of a series on
LGBTQ people
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Societal attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBTQ portal

A civil union (also known as a civil partnership) is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage, primarily intended to provide legal recognition for same-sex couples. Civil unions grant some or all of the rights of marriage, with child adoption being a common exception.

Civil unions have been established by law in several mostly developed countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, tax breaks, and responsibilities. In 1989, Denmark was the first country to legalise civil unions; however, most other developed democracies did not begin establishing them until the 1990s and early 2000s. In Brazil, civil unions were first created for opposite-sex couples in 2002, and then expanded to include same-sex couples in 2011. In the majority of countries that established same-sex civil unions, they have since been either supplemented or replaced by same-sex marriage. Civil unions are viewed by LGBT rights campaigners as a "first step" towards establishing same-sex marriage, as civil unions are viewed by supporters of LGBT rights as a "separate but equal" status.

Many jurisdictions with civil unions recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Schedule 20. The marriages of same-sex couples performed abroad may be recognized as civil unions in jurisdictions that only have the latter.

Overview and terminology

[edit]
The notion of civil unions is rejected by some, such as this protester at a large demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8.[1]

The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardised and vary widely from country to country. Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, significant relationships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, common-law marriage, adult interdependent relationships, life partnerships, stable unions, civil solidarity pacts, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances.

In the United States, the term civil union was introduced in the state of Vermont in 2000 to connote a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; it was chosen by the state's legislators in preference to phrases such as "domestic partner relationship" or "civil accord".[2]

Domestic partnership, offered by some states, counties, cities, and employers since as early as 1985,[3] has generally connoted a lesser status with fewer benefits.[4] However, the legislatures of the West Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington have preferred the term domestic partnership for enactments similar or equivalent to civil union laws in East Coast states.

Civil unions are not seen as a replacement for marriage by many in the LGBT community. "Marriage in the United States is a civil union; a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage", said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry.[5] "It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that." However, some opponents of same-sex marriage claim that civil unions rob marriage of its unique status; Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families, calls civil unions "homosexual marriage by another name" and contends that civil unions provide same-sex couples "all the rights of marriage available under state law".[6] The California Supreme Court, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, noted nine differences[7] in state law.

Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal'; critics such as former New Zealand MP and feminist Marilyn Waring note that same-sex couples remain excluded from the right to marry and are forced to use a separate institution.[8] Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that treating same-sex couples differently from other couples under the law allows for inferior treatment and that if civil unions were the same as marriage there would be no reason for two separate laws. A New Jersey commission which reviewed the state's civil union law reported that the law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children".[9] Some have suggested that creating civil unions which are open to opposite-sex couples would avoid the accusations of apartheid.[10]

Proponents of civil unions say that they provide practical equality for same-sex couples and solve the problems over areas such as hospital visitation rights and transfer of property caused by lack of legal recognition.[11] Proponents also say that creating civil unions is a more pragmatic way to ensure that same-sex couples have legal rights as it avoids the more controversial issues surrounding marriage and the claim that the term has a religious source.

Many supporters of same-sex marriage state that the word 'marriage' matters and that the term 'civil union' (and its equivalents) do not convey the emotional meaning or bring the respect that comes with marriage.[9][12] Former US Solicitor General and attorney in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case Theodore Olsen said that recognizing same-sex couples under the term 'domestic partnership' stigmatizes gay people's relationships, treating them as if they were "something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union".[13] Many also contend that the fact that civil unions are often not understood can cause difficulty for same-sex couples in emergency situations.[14]

List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage

[edit]

As of June 12, 2025, the states that provide civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples are:

In Israel, no national domestic authority performs same-sex marriage, though couples may marry abroad. In addition, same-sex couples may be considered to have a common-law marriage, which affords "most" of the rights of marriage.[15]

List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex union legislation
  Civil unions for same-sex couples.
  Civil unions in some counties.
  Civil unions not performed.

The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions which have established civil unions for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, categorized by continent, with the year in which the law establishing civil unions in the listed country or other jurisdiction came into effect in brackets:

Africa

[edit]

Americas

[edit]

Asia

[edit]

Europe

[edit]

Oceania

[edit]

Countries with former civil unions

[edit]
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only.
  Civil unions for same-sex couples only.
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.
  Civil unions not performed.

Several countries used to offer civil unions only for same-sex couples. The laws that allowed civil unions were repealed when same-sex marriage was legalized. The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions that used to offer civil unions for same-sex couples with the years in which they were available in brackets:

Europe

[edit]

Americas

[edit]

Asia

[edit]

Oceania

[edit]

Case studies

[edit]

Argentina

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Argentina

Since 2003, the Argentine province of Río Negro and the city of Buenos Aires allow domestic partnerships. The City of Villa Carlos Paz (Córdoba) allowed it from 2007. Since 2009, the city of Río Cuarto (Córdoba) allows Civil Unions.

Australia

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Australia

All levels of Australian Governments under nearly all Australian statutes do recognise same-sex couples as de facto couples as unregistered co-habitation or de facto status since 2009.[115] From 1 July 2009 Centrelink recognised same-sex couples equally regarding social security – under the common-law marriage, de facto status or unregistered cohabitation.[116]

Registered relationship recognition in state Governments:

State or territory Official relationship status Year of enactment
Australian Capital Territory Yes Civil partnership 2008
New South Wales Yes Registered relationship 2010
Queensland Yes Civil partnership 2012
Tasmania Yes Significant relationship 2004
Victoria Yes Registered domestic relationship 2008
South Australia Yes Registered relationship 2017

Registered relationship recognition in 5 local government areas within Australia:

Brazil

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Brazil
Countries performing civil unions in South America
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only.
  Civil unions never performed.

Cohabitation grants 112 benefits as family entities in Brazil since 2002. It is known as união estável when both parts are legally authorized to marry, and as concubinato when at least one party is legally prohibited from doing so.[122] Cohabitation grants all rights marriage confers, with the exception of automatic opt-in for one of four systems of property share married couples have access to, and automatic right to inheritance. Potential confusion might arise regarding terminology, given how when Brazilian Portuguese refers to the term união civil, it tends to be short for casamento civil, or civil marriage.

Couples that have at least one child registered as a descendant of both parties might also have access to união estável or concubinato rights.

Same-sex stable cohabitation in Brazil is legally recognized nationwide since May 5, 2011. Brazil's Supreme Court voted 10–0 with one abstention to allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples, following pointed recognition of such relationships that dates as far back as 2004. The ruling gave same-sex couples in such relationships the same financial and social rights enjoyed by those in mixed-sex ones.[123]

A union between two women and one man was reported in August 2012, though its legality was doubted.[124]

Canada

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Canada
Jurisdictions performing civil unions in North America
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.
  Civil unions never performed.

In Canada:

were extended to same-sex couples before the enactment of the federal Civil Marriage Act which legalized same-sex marriage in Canada nationally.

The 1994 proposed Equality Rights Statute Amendment Act in Ontario was a notable early attempt to introduce a status similar to civil unions. It was supported by the provincial government but was defeated in the legislature.[125]

Some provinces and territories amended their family law to extend statutory benefits to same-sex couples that were equivalent to those granted to unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples without establishing a specific name for the partnership. For example, Ontario was required to amend its family law legislation in 1999 in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in M v H.

Colombia

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Colombia

In 2007, Colombia came close to passing a law granting legal recognition to same-sex couples, but the bill failed on final passage in one house of the national legislature. However, a court decision in October 2007 extended social security and health insurance rights to same-sex couples.[126] On January 29, 2009, the Constitutional Court ruled that cohabitating same-sex couples must be given all rights offered to unmarried heterosexual couples,[127] making Colombia the first Latin American country to fully grant this right to all its citizens. Couples can claim these rights after living together for two years. Colombia has since approved same-sex marriage.

Costa Rica

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica

The Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica passed a bill in early July 2013 that "confers social rights and benefits of a civil union, free from discrimination", language inserted by lawmaker José María Villalta Florez-Estrada of the Broad Front party. After the bill passed, several media outlets reported that conservative lawmakers realized the bill's implications for same-sex unions and urged President Laura Chinchilla, who is set to face Villalta in the 2014 presidential election, to use her veto power to stop the bill from becoming law. Chinchilla, who has suggested the courts should determine the legality of same-sex unions in Costa Rica, refused and signed the bill into law on 4 July. A gay couple has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica asking that their union be recognized under the new law.[128] Gay rights activists reacting to the law said it needs to survive a constitutional challenge in court.[129][130] Some constitutional lawyers stated that same-sex couples will "still lack legal capacity" to formalize their unions, despite passage of the bill.[131]

Ecuador

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador

The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador enacted civil unions between two people without regard to gender, giving same-sex couples the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples except for the right to adopt.[132]

Europe

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe
Countries performing civil unions in Europe
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Civil unions for same-sex couples only.
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.
  Civil unions never performed.

In Europe:


Andorra

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra

Austria

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria

In 2018, Minister of Justice Josef Moser announced that both marriage and registered partnership would be open to homosexuals and heterosexuals. This occurred because Helga Ratzenböck and Martin Seydl have been appealing for years[timeframe?] in court for a registered civil partnership in Austria. At the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg they attempted to sue Austria for discrimination against their sexuality,[when?] because they were a heterosexual couple and were excluded from the benefits of registered partnership, but this failed.[133][134] Only when the Constitutional Court of Austria opened up marriage to homosexuals in December 2018 registered partnerships also become possible for heterosexuals. After 35 years of living together, the two entered into a registered partnership in 2019.[135]

Croatia

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Croatia

Cyprus

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Cyprus

Czech Republic

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in the Czech Republic

Denmark

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Denmark

Civil unions were introduced in Denmark by law on 7 June 1989, the world's first such law, and came into effect on 1 October 1989. On 7 June 2012, the law was replaced by a new same-sex marriage law, which came into effect on 15 June 2012.[136]

Registered partnership was by civil ceremony only, but the Church of Denmark allowed priests to perform blessings of same-sex couples, as it stated that the church blesses people, not institutions. The new law makes same-sex marriages in churches possible, but allows vicars to decline marriages of same-sex couples in their church.[136]

On 17 March 2009, the Folketing introduced a bill that gave same-sex couples in registered partnerships the right to adopt jointly.[137] This bill was approved on 4 May 2010 and took effect on 1 July 2010.[138]

Estonia

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Estonia

Registered partnerships that provide some of the rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage have been available to same-sex couples since 1 January 2016.[139]

France

[edit]
PACS (blue) and marriage (red) in France (INSEE)
Main article: Civil solidarity pact

The French law providing benefits to same-sex couples also applies to opposite-sex couples who choose this form of partnership over marriage. Known as the "Pacte civil de solidarité" (PACS), it is more easily dissolved than the divorce process applying to marriage. Tax benefits accrue immediately (only from 2007 on[citation needed]), while immigration benefits accrue only after the contract has been in effect for one year. The partners are required to have a common address, making it difficult for foreigners to use this law as a means to a residence permit, and difficult for French citizens to gain the right to live with a foreign partner – especially since the contract does not automatically give immigration rights, as marriage does.[140]

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of marriages decreased while the number of PACS strongly increased. In 2010, there were 3 PACS for every 4 marriages celebrated in France.[141] Especially amongst heterosexual couples PACS is very popular, with 96 out of 100 PACS couples being heterosexual in the year 2019.[142]

Countries performing civil unions in Central America and the Caribbean Islands
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only.
  Civil unions never performed.

Germany

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Germany

Civil unions in Germany began in 2001.[143]

In 2017, registered life partnership was replaced with marriage, with any couple regardless of sex allowed to marry.[144]

Greece

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Greece

Greek parliament voted in favor of a Cohabitation Pact (Greek: Σύμφωνο Συμβίωσης) giving almost the same rights as marriage to couples regardless of their sex. The draft was approved in the relevant Greek parliament committee[when?] and during voting on 22 December 2015, the law was passed with 194 positive votes (out of 300).[145]

Hungary

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Hungary

Civil unions in Hungary began in 2009.[146]

Iceland

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Iceland

Iceland does not have a comprehensive legal act on civil unions (Icelandic: óvígð sambúð). Instead, various laws deal with civil unions and their meaning. When Iceland legalised same-sex marriages in 2010, the Act on Registered Partnerships (87/1996) was abolished. Registered partnerships (Icelandic: staðfest samvist) had been the principal legal unions for same-sex partners since the law was passed in 1996.[147]

Ireland

[edit]

In 2010, the lower house of the Irish Parliament Dáil Éireann passed the bill on Civil Partnerships unanimously. This bill allows civil partnerships of same-sex couples, and establishes an extensive package of rights, obligations and protections for same-sex couples who register as civil partners.[148] The bill passed all stages of in both Houses of the Oireachtas,[149] and came into effect on 1 January 2011. The first partnership between two men was registered on 7 February 2011.[150]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Ireland since 2015 following a referendum.[151]

Italy

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Italy

Legal recognition of same-sex civil unions in Italy began in 2016.I[152][153][154][155]

Liechtenstein

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Liechtenstein

Civil unions in Liechtenstein began in 2011.[156]

Monaco

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Monaco

Civil unions in Monaco began in 2020.[157]

Montenegro

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Montenegro

Civil unions in Montenegro began in 2020.[158][159][160][161]

Netherlands

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands

In 2001, the Netherlands passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, in addition to its 1998 "registered partnership" law (civil union) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.[162][163]

Poland

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland

In 2003, Senator Maria Szyszkowska proposed a bill which would legalize same-sex civil unions in Poland.[164] The project was approved by the Senate but was never voted upon by the Sejm, as Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (then the Marshal of the Sejm) did not bring it for the deliberation.

In 2008, when asked about same-sex civil unions, First Cabinet of Donald Tusk spokeswoman Agnieszka Liszka answered: "Council of Ministers did not and would not take care of that matter."[165]

On January 25, 2013, Sejm voted upon three separate bills regarding same-sex civil unions in Poland: by the centre-left Democratic Left Alliance, liberal Palikot's Movement and centre-right Civic Platform. The first bill had 283 against, 137 for, 30 abstaining. The second had 276 against, 150 for, 23 abstaining. The third had 228 against, 211 for, 10 abstaining. All three were rejected, mainly with the votes of centre-right, right-wing and conservative parties: Polish People's Party, Law and Justice and United Poland. A majority of deputies from the ruling centre-right Civic Platform also voted against the first two bills.[166][167][168] The Roman Catholic Church in Poland, Polish Orthodox Church and Polish Muslims opposed all three bills.

In March 2013, Prime Minister Donald Tusk officially stated that a new project of civil unions bill would be presented to the parliament "in two months time" (in May 2013), but as of April 2014[needs update] no such initiatives took place.

In a 2013 opinion poll conducted by CBOS, 68% of Poles were against gays and lesbians publicly showing their way of life, 65% of Poles were against same-sex civil unions, 72% were against same-sex marriage and 88% were against adoption by same-sex couples.[169]

In December 2014, the Sejm refused to deal with a civil partnership bill proposed by Your Movement, with 235 MPs voting against debating the bill, and 185 MPs voting for.[170]

In May 2015, the Sejm again refused to deal with the topic, with 215 MPs voting against and only 146 for. The Prime Minister, Ewa Kopacz, said that civil partnerships are an issue for the next parliament to deal with.[171]

San Marino

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in San Marino

San Marino has recognized civil unions for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples since December 2018.[172][173]

Slovenia

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Slovenia

Slovenia recognized same-sex partnerships since 2006.[174][175]

Switzerland

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Switzerland

The Canton of Geneva has a law on the cantonal level, the Partenariat cantonal (the Cantonal Domestic Partnership), since 2001. It grants unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, many of the rights, responsibilities and protections that married couples have. However, it does not allow benefits in taxation, social security, or health insurance premiums (unlike the federal law). Geneva was the first Canton to recognise same-sex couples through this law.

On September 22, 2002, voters in the Swiss canton of Zurich voted to extend a number of marriage rights to same-sex partners, including tax, inheritance, and social security benefits.[176] The law is limited to same-sex couples, and both partners must have lived in the canton for six months and formally commit to running a household together and supporting and aiding each another.

On November 12, 2003, the Constituent assembly of the Canton of Fribourg granted Registered Partnership as a constitutional right under the Article 14.

On January 27, 2004, the Canton of Neuchâtel voted for a law on the cantonal level, the Partenariat enregistré (the Cantonal Registered Partnership). It grants unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, the same rights as married couple for cantonal matters such as responsibilities and protections, benefits in taxation, social security, or health insurance premiums.

On June 5, 2005, voters extended this right to the whole of Switzerland through a federal referendum. This was the first time that the civil union laws were affirmed in a nationwide referendum in any country. The Federal Domestic Partnership Law, reserved for same-sex couples, came into force on January 1, 2007. It grants the same rights as marriage, but full joint adoption rights, facilitated naturalization and medically assisted procreation are explicitly forbidden for same-sex domestic partners.[177]

In 2017, the Federal Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga addressed the issue that civil union is not open yet for heterosexual couples, in collaboration with experts at the University of Bern. In Geneva and Neuchâtel a type of civil union called cantonal PACS is available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.[178] The cantonal PACS effects are limited to cantonal law. The cantonal PACS, however, has no impact on civil status and inheritance, which are regulated by federal law.[178]

On September 26, 2021, the people of Switzerland approved on national referendum the initiative "Marriage for all", which would grant marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples. This initiative would be made effective on July 1, 2022.

United Kingdom

[edit]
Main article: Civil partnership in the United Kingdom

In 2003, the British government announced plans to introduce civil partnerships which would allow same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities resulting from marriage. The Civil Partnership Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 30 March 2004. After considering amendments made by the House of Commons, it was passed by the House of Lords, its final legislative step, on 17 November 2004, and received royal assent on 18 November. The Act came into force on 5 December 2005, and same-sex, but not opposite-sex, couples were able to form the civil partnerships from 19 December 2005 in Northern Ireland, 20 December 2005 in Scotland and 21 December 2005 in England and Wales.[179] Separate provisions were included in the first Finance Act 2005 to allow regulations to be made to amend tax laws to give the same tax advantages and disadvantages to couples in civil partnerships as apply to married couples. At that time, the Church of England, the state church in England, permitted clergy to enter into same-sex civil partnerships.[180]

Aside from the manner in which couples register and the non-use of the word "marriage", civil partnerships grant most of the same legal rights as marriage and generally operate under the same constrictions (one difference being that marriage requires dissolution by divorce while a civil union does not). It is not legal to be in both a civil partnership and a marriage at the same time. Nevertheless, some of those in favour of legal same-sex marriage object that civil partnerships do not grant full equality.

Both same-sex marriages and civil unions of other nations will be automatically considered civil partnerships under UK law providing they came within Section 20 of the Act. This means, in some cases, non-Britons from nations with civil unions will have greater rights in the UK than in their native countries. For example, a Vermont civil union would have legal standing in the UK; however, in cases where one partner was American and the other British, the Vermont civil union would not provide the Briton with right of abode in Vermont (or any other US state or territory), whereas it would provide the American with right of abode in the UK.

In September 2011, the succeeding coalition government announced its intention to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales by 2015 at the latest.[181] The future status of civil partnerships is unclear. The Scottish Government, which has devolved responsibility for such legislation, held a consultation concerning both civil and religious same sex marriage in the autumn of 2011.[when?] Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 2013 and came into force on 13 March 2014, and the first same-sex marriages took place on 29 March 2014. The first same-sex marriages in Scotland took place in December 2014.

In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that restricting civil partnerships to same-sex couples was discriminatory.[182] In response, the Prime Minister announced in October 2018 that civil partnerships would be opened to heterosexual couples.[183] In autumn 2018 Theresa May announced that she would open up the "Civil Partnership" to heterosexual couples in England.[184] As of 31st December 2019 it is possible for both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into a civil partnership in England.[185]

Mexico

[edit]
Main articles: Same-sex marriage in Mexico and Same-sex marriage in Mexico City
States performing civil unions in Mexico
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.
  Civil unions never performed.

On 9 November 2006, Mexico City's unicameral Legislative Assembly passed and approved (43–17) a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions, under the name Ley de Sociedades de Convivencia (Law for Co-existence Partnerships), which became effective on 16 March 2007.[186] The law gives property and inheritance rights to same-sex couples. On 11 January 2007, the northern state of Coahuila, which borders Texas, passed a similar bill (20–13), under the name Pacto Civil de Solidaridad (Civil Pact of Solidarity).[187] Unlike Mexico City's law, once same-sex couples have registered in Coahuila, the state protects their rights no matter where they live in the country.[187] Twenty days after the law had passed,[when?] the country's first same-sex civil union took place in Saltillo, Coahuila.[188] Civil unions have been proposed in at least six states since 2006.[189]

In Colima, governor Mario Anguiano Moreno has agreed to discuss the legalization of civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples.[190][when?] In Jalisco, local congress approved on 31 October 2013 the Free Coexistence Act, which allows the performance of civil unions in the state.[191]

New Zealand

[edit]
Main article: Civil union in New Zealand
Countries performing civil unions in Oceania
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Civil unions never performed.

On 9 December 2004 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.[192][193] The debate over Civil Unions was highly divisive in New Zealand, inspiring great public emotion both for and against the passing. A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was passed shortly thereafter to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas.

The Civil Union Act 2004 came into effect on 26 April 2005 with the first unions able to occur from Friday 29 April 2005.

South Africa

[edit]
Main article: Civil partnership in South Africa
Countries performing civil unions in Africa
  Gender-neutral civil unions.
  Civil unions never performed.

In South Africa, a "civil union" is either a marriage or a civil partnership, although the term "civil union" is commonly used when "civil partnership" is meant. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples may register their unions either as marriages or as civil partnerships. This was achieved through the Civil Union Act, 2006.[194][195] In laws where "marriage" is mentioned, its definition now retroactively includes civil partnerships.

United States

[edit]
Main articles: Same-sex unions in the United States and Domestic partnership in the United States
States performing civil unions
  Civil union
  Civil union with limited rights
  Civil unions not performed
  Civil unions forbidden

The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000.[196] The federal government does not recognize these unions. By the end of 2006, Connecticut[197] and New Jersey[198] had also enacted civil union laws; New Hampshire followed in 2007.[199] Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law as well. The same might be said[by whom?] for domestic partnership in the District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.

Jurisdictions in the U.S. that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships granting nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples include:

States in the U.S. with domestic partnerships or similar status granting some of the rights of marriage include:

Since October 2014, all states that provide for civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar arrangements between same-sex partners also allow same-sex partners to legally wed.[200][201]

Arizona

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Arizona

In 2013, Bisbee became the first city in Arizona to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.[202] After its passage, the state's Attorney General, Tom Horne, threatened to challenge the law in court, arguing that it violated the state's constitution.[203] However, the Attorney General agreed to withdraw the challenge after Bisbee amended the law, and the civil union ordinance was approved.[204]

Following Bisbee, also in 2013, Tucson became the second municipality to legalize civil unions.[205] Jerome followed in the same year.[206] Also in 2013, Clarkdale and Cottonwood were the next cities in the Verde Valley to pass civil unions.[207][208] A measure to allow civil unions failed in Camp Verde by a split 3–3 vote in the city council making it the only city in the Verde Valley to not have passed the bill.[209]

Sedona passed civil unions in September 2013.[210] The city of Tempe considered legal advice about a civil union ordinance, but it did not pass a bill.[211] After the legalization of same-sex marriage in Arizona, civil unions may continue to be registered in the cities that had legalized the ordinances.[212]

California

[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in California

In California, where domestic partnership (DP) has been available to same-sex and certain opposite-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level. In 2007, the Legislature took a further step when it required same-sex DP couples to file state income taxes jointly. (Couples must continue to file federal taxes as individuals.) In the May 2008 In re Marriage Cases decision, the state supreme court noted nine differences between Domestic Partnerships and same-sex marriage in state law, including a cohabitation requirement for domestic partners, access to CalPERS long-term care insurance (but not CalPERS in general), and the lack of an equivalent to California's "confidential marriage" institution.[7] The cohabitation requirement was dropped on January 1, 2012, and a "confidential option" for domestic partners became available the same day.

Colorado

[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Colorado

A bill to establish civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples passed both chambers of the Colorado legislature and was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper. Civil unions began on May 1, 2013.[213][214][215]

Connecticut

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

In 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a bill to adopt civil unions in Connecticut. Connecticut's civil unions were identical to marriage and provided all of the same rights and responsibilities except for the title. Connecticut was the first state in the U.S. to voluntarily pass a same-sex civil unions law through the legislature without any immediate court intervention.[216] The law was repealed on October 1, 2010, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.

Delaware

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Delaware

Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed a civil union bill on May 12, 2011, that establishes civil unions in the state effective January 1, 2012.[217] The law was repealed on July 1, 2014, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.

District of Columbia

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia

Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia was legalized on December 18, 2009.[218] Marriage licenses became available on March 3, 2010,[219] and marriages began on March 9, 2010.[220] Legislation on domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia was first passed in 1992, implemented in 2002, and expanded over time up to 2009.[221][222][223]

Hawaii

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Hawaii

Hawaii legalized civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on January 1, 2012.[224] Same-sex marriage became legal on December 2, 2013.[225][226]

Illinois

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Illinois

On December 1, 2010, the Illinois state senate passed SB1716 – the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act" – in a 32–24–1 vote, just one day after the Illinois House of Representatives did the same in a 61–52–2 vote. On January 31, 2011, Illinois state Governor Pat Quinn signed SB1716 into law, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The new law came into effect on June 1, 2011. The provision allowing opposite-sex couples to establish a civil union effectively doubles as a tool for widowed seniors to keep survivor's benefits from a marriage while gaining marital rights at the state level with another partner.[227][228]

Maine

[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Maine

Maine legalized domestic partnership for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in 2004.[229][230] Maine's domestic partnership registry only provides limited rights, most of which are aimed at protecting couples' security in emergency situations.

New Hampshire

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire

On April 26, 2007, the New Hampshire General Court (state legislature) passed a civil union bill, and Governor John Lynch signed the bill into law on May 31, 2007.[231] At the time, New Hampshire was "... the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one".[232] The New Hampshire civil union legislation became effective on January 1, 2008.[233] The law was replaced by the same-sex marriage law on January 1, 2010.[234]

New Jersey

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Jersey

On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey gave New Jersey lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the state's marriage laws, either including same-sex couples or creating a new system of civil unions for them. On December 14 the Legislature passed a bill establishing civil unions in New Jersey, which was signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006. The first civil unions took place on February 19, 2007.[198]

There are differences between civil unions and domestic partnerships. In 2004, the state of New Jersey enacted a domestic partnership law, the Domestic Partnership Act, offering certain limited rights and benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples. In 2006, however, after the state Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis vs. Harris that same-sex couples must be extended all the rights and benefits of marriage, the Legislature passed a civil unions law, the Civil Union Act, effective in 2007, which was an attempt to satisfy the court's ruling.[235]

Nevada

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Nevada

On May 31, 2009, the Nevada legislature overrode Governor Jim Gibbons' veto of a domestic partnership bill.[236][237][238][239] The bill allows registered domestic partners, whether they are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, to have most of the state level rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples. It does not require any other entity to provide rights or benefits afforded to married individuals. This has left the partnership bill ineffective compared to those of other states. The law took effect on 1 October 2009.

Oregon

[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Oregon

Since 4 February 2008, Oregon offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

Rhode Island

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island

Civil unions were permitted in Rhode Island since July 1, 2011 until July 1, 2013.

Vermont

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont

The civil unions law[240] that was passed in the Vermont General Assembly in 2000 was a response to the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont, requiring that the state grant same-sex couples the same rights and privileges accorded to married couples under the law.

A Vermont civil union is nearly identical to a legal marriage, as far as the rights and responsibilities for which state law, not federal law, is responsible are concerned.[240] It grants partners next-of-kin rights and other protections that heterosexual married couples also receive. However, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, civil unions are generally not recognized outside Vermont in the absence of specific legislation. Opponents of the law have supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in order to prevent obligatory recognition of same-sex couples in other jurisdictions. This means that many of the advantages of marriage, which fall in the federal jurisdiction (over 1,100 federal laws, such as joint federal income tax returns, visas and work permits for the foreign partner of a U.S. citizen, etc.), are not extended to the partners of a Vermont civil union.

Regarding voluntary recognition of the civil union in other jurisdictions, New York City's Domestic Partnership Law, passed in 2002, recognizes civil unions formalized in other jurisdictions. Germany's international civil law (EGBGB) also accords to Vermont civil unions the same benefits and responsibilities that apply in Vermont, as long as they do not exceed the standard accorded by German law to a German civil union. The law was replaced by the same-sex marriage law on September 1, 2009.

Washington

[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Washington (state)

Washington offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Washington is the first state to have passed a same-sex civil union bill by a popular vote.

Washington legalized same-sex marriage early in 2012, which provided that a couple in a civil union would have two years to convert their civil union to a marriage. The law was upheld by popular referendum in November 2012.[241]

Uruguay

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Uruguay

Civil unions in Uruguay were allowed nationwide from January 2008.[242][243]

National debates

[edit]

International standards

[edit]

To date, only two countries, Spain and Portugal, have signed onto the Convention on the Recognition of Registered Partnerships, a draft multilateral agreement on the status of civil, unmarried partnerships.[248] The document is inclusive of rights for both same and opposite sex partnerships.[249]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Civil union

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A civil union is a legally recognized arrangement between two persons, typically of the same sex but sometimes open to opposite-sex couples, that confers state-level rights and obligations similar to marriage, such as inheritance, medical decision-making, and tax filings, but lacks full federal protections in the United States. Originating as a compromise to provide partnership recognition where same-sex marriage was prohibited, civil unions were first enacted in Vermont in 2000 following a state supreme court ruling that equal protection required legal benefits equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples. Unlike marriage, civil unions do not automatically qualify partners for over 1,000 federal benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits and immigration sponsorship, and their recognition often fails to extend across state lines or internationally, creating practical inequalities. As of 2025, civil unions or equivalent registered partnerships persist in approximately two dozen countries and subnational jurisdictions, including Italy, Greece, and several U.S. states like Colorado and Illinois, even as same-sex marriage has expanded globally, reflecting ongoing debates over the sufficiency of partial legal equivalence versus full marital status. Critics have argued that civil unions institutionalize a "separate but equal" framework, empirically failing to deliver parity in practice due to administrative hurdles and incomplete rights portability, which fueled advocacy for marriage equality culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

Core Characteristics

A civil union establishes a legally recognized partnership between two individuals, conferring state-level rights and obligations akin to those of marriage, such as inheritance rights, medical decision-making authority, and spousal benefits in employment and insurance. These unions are typically formed through a formal registration process with government authorities, requiring documentation of eligibility and often a declaration of commitment, without the religious or ceremonial elements associated with traditional marriage. While originally designed to extend legal protections to same-sex couples denied marriage access, some jurisdictions permit opposite-sex couples to enter civil unions, emphasizing mutual consent and cohabitation as foundational elements. Key obligations mirror marital duties, including shared financial responsibilities, spousal support in cases of dissolution, and equal treatment under state family law for matters like property division and parental rights in joint adoptions. Partners gain next-of-kin status for hospital visitation and emergency decisions, as well as protections against eviction or discrimination based on relationship status in certain contexts. However, these characteristics are jurisdiction-specific, with variations in scope; for instance, civil unions do not automatically confer federal tax advantages or immigration benefits, limiting their uniformity. Enforcement relies on state courts, which treat civil union partners as having equivalent standing to spouses for applicable state statutes. Civil unions prioritize secular legal equality over symbolic marital status, enabling access to over 300 state-recognized benefits in enacting jurisdictions, such as workers' compensation survivor payments and state pension portability, while imposing reciprocal duties like alimony upon termination. This framework underscores a contractual basis, verifiable through public records, distinguishing it from informal cohabitation by mandating affirmative state acknowledgment.

Distinctions from Common-Law and De Facto Partnerships

Civil unions differ fundamentally from common-law marriages and de facto partnerships in their formation, as they necessitate a deliberate, formal registration process through government authorities, such as obtaining a license from a county clerk's office in jurisdictions like Illinois, where applicants must be at least 18 years old, provide identification, and pay a fee before the union is legally recognized. In contrast, common-law marriages, recognized in only a handful of U.S. states including Colorado and Texas as of 2023, arise automatically from prolonged cohabitation coupled with mutual intent to be married, without requiring any ceremonial or documentary step, though proof of such intent is often demanded in court disputes. De facto partnerships, prevalent in countries like Canada and New Zealand, similarly emerge from factual cohabitation—typically after three years or upon having a child—without formal declaration, relying instead on evidentiary assessment of the relationship's stability and interdependence. Regarding rights and obligations, civil unions explicitly confer a defined bundle of state-level protections akin to marriage, including spousal inheritance, medical decision-making, and property division upon dissolution, as legislated in places like Vermont since 2000 and Illinois since 2011, but these do not extend automatically to federal benefits unless converted. Common-law marriages, where valid, grant equivalent spousal rights within recognizing jurisdictions but face inconsistent interstate portability, with non-recognizing states like California treating them merely as cohabitation unless formally proven. De facto relationships, however, afford narrower protections, such as limited property claims under family law statutes in Quebec or New Zealand, but exclude automatic spousal support, inheritance without a will, or pension survivorship rights regardless of duration, underscoring their status as informal arrangements lacking the contractual certainty of registered unions. Dissolution processes further delineate these arrangements: civil unions mandate a judicial proceeding analogous to , involving potential asset division, considerations, and oversight to enforce statutory obligations, as required under Illinois effective June 1, 2011. Common-law marriages, if recognized, similarly require formal dissolution akin to in the validating jurisdiction but dissolve informally upon separation elsewhere, complicating enforcement of ongoing duties like support. De facto partnerships end upon cessation of cohabitation without intervention for spousal , though property disputes may necessitate litigation under equitable distribution principles, as in Quebec where de facto spouses hold no mutual financial support liability post-separation.
AspectCivil UnionCommon-Law MarriageDe Facto Partnership
FormationFormal license and registrationCohabitation + intent (select jurisdictions)Cohabitation (e.g., 3+ years)
Rights ScopeExplicit state-level spousal benefitsEquivalent where recognized, but variable portabilityLimited to property/equity claims
DissolutionCourt process like divorceCourt if recognized; informal otherwiseSeparation; court for assets only
Jurisdictions (examples)Illinois (2011), Vermont (2000)Texas, Colorado (as of 2023)Quebec, New Zealand

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Analogues and Early 20th-Century Precedents

In pre-modern Europe, the Byzantine rite of adelphopoiesis (Greek for "brother-making") served as a ceremonial analogue to partnership formation, attested in liturgical texts from the late 8th century through the 15th century. This rite, performed in Eastern Orthodox churches, ritually bound two men—often warriors, monks, or nobles—in a spiritual fraternity, invoking oaths of mutual aid, shared inheritance risks, and fidelity akin to familial ties. Examples include the 9th-century union of Emperor Basil I with his companion John, documented in chronicles as a formalized bond of loyalty. While providing social and economic solidarity without sexual connotations, adelphopoiesis lacked state enforcement of rights like those in modern civil unions and was explicitly fraternal rather than conjugal. Historian John Boswell controversially posited adelphopoiesis as a de facto same-sex union ceremony, analogous to marriage, in his 1994 analysis of over 70 medieval manuscripts, arguing parallels in liturgical language to heterosexual wedding rites and citing hagiographic pairings like Saints Sergius and Bacchus (commemorated circa 7th century). Scholarly consensus, however, dismisses this as anachronistic projection, emphasizing the rite's roots in classical adoption practices and biblical brotherhood models (e.g., David and Jonathan), with no evidence of erotic intent or spousal obligations; critics like Brent Shaw highlight Boswell's selective translations and ignore contextual prohibitions on same-sex acts in canon law. Similar non-marital bonds existed elsewhere, such as ancient Roman fidelio pacts among soldiers or Mesopotamian adoption contracts (circa 18th century BCE) for economic alliance, but these were informal or limited to property, not comprehensive legal statuses. In ancient Rome, elite same-sex pairings occasionally mimicked marital forms, as with Emperor Nero's 67 CE union to the eunuch Sporus, involving a dowry, bridal attire, and public feast, or Elagabalus's 219 CE ceremony with charioteer Hierocles, complete with titles of "husband" and "wife." These acts, however, represented personal extravagance amid tolerated pederasty, not codified civil frameworks; Roman law reserved ius civile marriage for heterosexual citizens, excluding same-sex couples from inheritance, adoption, or state protections. Early 20th-century legal systems offered no precedents for civil unions, as same-sex relations remained criminalized under sodomy statutes in most Western jurisdictions—e.g., upheld in the U.S. via Bowers v. Hardwick precedents tracing to 19th-century codes—and heterosexual common-law marriage dominated informal recognition. Decriminalization began sporadically, such as Poland's 1932 penal code revision, but without partnership provisions; nascent advocacy, like Magnus Hirschfeld's 1920s Berlin efforts for homosexual rights, focused on decriminalization rather than relational status. Formal registered partnerships emerged only in 1989 with Denmark's law, marking the shift from tolerance to legal parity.

Origins in Registered Partnerships (1989–2000)

The origins of civil unions trace to registered partnership laws enacted in Europe, beginning with Denmark's Registered Partnership Act of 1989, which provided same-sex couples with legal recognition through registration, granting rights to inheritance, spousal maintenance, joint taxation, and pension benefits, while excluding adoption and church ceremonies. This legislation, effective October 1, 1989, required partners to be of legal age, not closely related, and at least one to reside in Denmark, mirroring many heterosexual marriage eligibility criteria but limited to same-sex pairs. By year's end, over 300 partnerships were registered, demonstrating immediate uptake among same-sex couples seeking formal protections without full marital status. This Danish model influenced subsequent Nordic adoptions, with Norway enacting its Registered Partnership Act in 1993, extending similar economic and social security rights to same-sex couples, including survivor's pensions and housing protections, but maintaining exclusions on joint adoption and fertility treatments. Sweden followed in 1995 with a comparable law, providing inheritance tax exemptions, shared property division upon dissolution, and immigration privileges, though adoption rights remained unavailable until later reforms. Iceland introduced its framework in 1996, aligning with the regional pattern of granting contractual benefits like mutual support obligations and next-of-kin status in medical decisions, while deliberately stopping short of equating partnerships to marriage in nomenclature or parental rights. These laws emphasized contractual equality in civil matters over symbolic parity with heterosexual marriage, reflecting legislative intent to address practical disparities without redefining traditional institutions.
CountryYear EnactedKey Rights GrantedNotable Exclusions
Denmark1989Inheritance, joint taxation, pension sharingAdoption, church weddings
Norway1993Survivor's benefits, housing successionJoint adoption, fertility access
Sweden1995Property division, immigration preferencesParental rights
Iceland1996Medical decision-making, maintenance claimsMarriage equivalency in symbolism
Beyond Scandinavia, the Netherlands implemented registered partnerships in 1998, open to same-sex couples and conferring rights to social security, tax advantages, and dissolution procedures akin to divorce, serving as a precursor to its later same-sex marriage law. These European developments, concentrated in progressive welfare states, established a template for state-recognized same-sex unions focused on economic interdependence rather than comprehensive familial equivalence, influencing global discourse on civil recognition by 2000. Legislative debates often highlighted empirical needs for stability among same-sex households, such as elderly care and asset protection, over ideological demands for marital terminology.

Expansion via Vermont Model and Global Adoption (2000–2010)

In response to the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Vermont (1999), which held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage violated the state's Common Benefits Clause, the legislature passed Act 91 on April 26, 2000, establishing civil unions effective July 1, 2000. This framework granted same-sex couples approximately 300 state-level rights and responsibilities identical to those of married opposite-sex spouses, including inheritance, medical decision-making, and property division, while explicitly reserving the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions. The Vermont model emphasized contractual equivalence in benefits without symbolic equivalence to marriage, serving as a legislative compromise to comply with the court mandate amid opposition to full marriage redefinition. The Vermont approach influenced subsequent adoptions in other U.S. jurisdictions wary of judicial overreach or electoral backlash against marriage expansion. Connecticut enacted civil unions via Public Act 05-166, effective October 1, 2005, following Kerrigan v. Connecticut Department of Public Health (2005), which similarly required equal benefits under the state constitution; this provided over 200 rights mirroring marriage at the state level. New Jersey followed with the Civil Union Act signed December 14, 2006, effective February 19, 2007, prompted by Lewis v. Harris (2006), extending spousal privileges in taxation, healthcare, and survivor benefits but excluding federal recognition. New Hampshire's Civil Union Law, signed June 3, 2008 and effective January 1, 2009, mirrored these provisions until its repeal in favor of marriage in 2010. The District of Columbia authorized civil unions effective March 3, 2010, under the Health Care Decisions Act amendment, focusing on healthcare proxies and limited property rights. By 2010, these enactments covered roughly 5% of the U.S. population, often as interim measures before transitioning to marriage, with Vermont's framework cited in legislative debates for balancing rights extension and traditional definitions. Globally, the 2000–2010 period saw parallel expansions of civil unions or equivalent registered partnerships, independent of the Vermont model but aligned in providing contractual benefits short of marriage to same-sex couples. Germany's Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz (Life Partnership Act), effective January 1, 2001, conferred rights in inheritance, maintenance, and immigration, though excluding joint adoption. The United Kingdom's Civil Partnership Act 2004, effective December 5, 2005, extended comprehensive protections including pensions and tenancy succession across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. South Africa's Civil Union Act 17 of 2006, signed November 30, 2006 and effective December 1, 2007, uniquely allowed both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter unions with full conjugal rights equivalent to marriage under the constitution's equality clause. Other adoptions included the Czech Republic's registered partnership law effective July 1, 2006, granting limited property and succession rights, and Hungary's Act on Registered Partners effective July 1, 2009, focusing on cohabitation benefits without parental rights. These developments, building on earlier precedents like Denmark's 1989 partnership, reflected a trend toward incremental legal recognition amid debates over marriage's exclusivity, with approximately 15 jurisdictions worldwide offering such frameworks by 2010.

Rights, Obligations, and Enforcement

Civil unions confer upon partners a bundle of state-level legal protections equivalent to those provided to married spouses under the relevant jurisdiction's laws, including benefits derived from statutes, administrative rules, and court precedents. In the pioneering Vermont framework established in 2000, parties to a civil union receive all the same state benefits, protections, and responsibilities as spouses, encompassing over 300 specific state-granted rights such as those pertaining to property management, workers' compensation, and intestate succession. Similar provisions apply in other U.S. states like Illinois and New Jersey, where civil union statutes mandate identical treatment to marriage for state purposes, including access to spousal privileges in legal proceedings and equitable distribution of marital property upon dissolution. Key standard protections routinely include:
  • Healthcare and medical decision-making rights: Partners hold authority to make healthcare decisions for an incapacitated spouse and secure hospital visitation privileges, mirroring marital entitlements.
  • Inheritance and survivorship benefits: Automatic intestate succession rights allow a partner to inherit the deceased's estate without a will, alongside survivor benefits from pensions, life insurance proceeds, and workers' compensation.
  • Tax and financial privileges: Eligibility for joint filing of state income taxes and exemptions from certain transfer inheritance taxes on the same basis as spouses.
  • Property and contractual rights: Joint ownership and management of real and personal property, with protections against disinheritance and rights to spousal maintenance or alimony equivalents upon separation.
  • Employment-related benefits: Access to family and medical leave, bereavement leave, and extension of employer-provided health insurance or retirement plans to the partner.
These protections enforce mutual obligations, such as financial support and shared liability for certain debts, enforceable through family courts akin to divorce proceedings. While comprehensive at the state level, they do not extend to federal benefits like Social Security survivor payments or immigration sponsorship, which require marital status.

Limitations and Jurisdictional Variations

Civil unions typically confer state or provincial-level rights such as inheritance, hospital visitation, and decision-making authority, but often exclude federal or national benefits available to married couples, including joint tax filing, spousal Social Security survivor benefits, and immigration sponsorship. In the United States, where civil unions remain available in five states as of 2023—Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Vermont—these arrangements do not automatically qualify partners for over 1,000 federal protections, such as federal estate tax exemptions or COBRA health insurance continuation, unless converted to marriage following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Jurisdictional variations manifest in the scope of protections and recognition portability. In Illinois, for instance, civil union partners lack automatic access to federal spousal tax deductions and face challenges in interstate enforcement, where non-recognizing states may deny full privileges like probate rights. Similarly, France's PACS (Pacte civil de solidarité), established in 1999, provides joint tax declarations and social security coordination but omits automatic inheritance shares, spousal pension rights equivalent to marriage, and international equivalency, with dissolution requiring only unilateral notice rather than judicial oversight. Cross-border limitations exacerbate disparities; civil unions formed in one jurisdiction, such as Rhode Island recognizing out-of-state equivalents for benefits but not always for dissolution, may receive partial or no acknowledgment elsewhere, leading to denied healthcare portability or inheritance claims. In the European Union, registered partnerships vary by member state, with some like Germany's conferring near-marital rights while others limit adoption or pension survivorship, and EU-wide recognition remains inconsistent absent marriage. These inconsistencies stem from civil unions' design as interim or alternative statuses, often yielding incomplete legal symmetry and administrative burdens compared to marriage.

Interstate and International Recognition Issues

In the United States, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, yet its application to civil unions has historically been uneven due to variations in state laws defining valid unions. Prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which mandated nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages, out-of-state civil unions—such as those established under Vermont law starting in 2000—faced frequent non-recognition in jurisdictions lacking equivalent institutions, complicating matters like inheritance, medical decision-making, and dissolution proceedings. For instance, courts in states without civil union statutes often refused to validate them as equivalent to marriage for spousal benefits or tort claims against third parties, with only isolated litigation addressing such scenarios, including one federal case permitting a civil union partner to sue for wrongful death. Even after Obergefell, residual challenges persist for pre-2015 civil unions not automatically converted to marriages, as some states treat them as domestic partnerships with limited portability, particularly for federal benefits or interstate property disputes. Internationally, recognition of civil unions remains fragmented, lacking uniform treaties or conventions equivalent to those for marriages under frameworks like the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Within the European Union, Directive 2004/38/EC facilitates free movement for registered partners if the host member state treats such unions comparably to marriage, but implementation varies; for example, not all EU countries extend full spousal rights to foreign civil unions, leading to denials in residency or inheritance claims. Outside Europe, many jurisdictions, including the United States for immigration purposes, do not equate foreign civil unions with marriages; U.S. Department of State regulations specify that civil unions qualify for visa adjudication only if deemed a "valid marriage" under the law of the place of celebration, excluding standalone partnerships from spousal petitions under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This has practical consequences, such as barred family reunification for partners in civil unions from countries like France (PACS since 1999) or Uruguay (since 2007), unless converted to marriage, and heightened risks during international travel for emergencies like hospitalization where local laws ignore foreign union status. Bilateral agreements, such as those between Australia and New Zealand for certain partnership recognitions, provide narrow exceptions, but global inconsistencies often necessitate legal conversions to ensure enforceability.

Comparison to Traditional Marriage

Substantive Equivalences in Contractual Benefits

In jurisdictions such as Vermont and New Jersey, civil unions have been structured to provide contractual benefits substantially equivalent to those of marriage under state law, encompassing areas like taxation, inheritance, and property division. Vermont's civil union law, effective July 1, 2000, entitles parties to the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities as married spouses, including joint state tax filing, intestate succession rights, and equitable distribution of marital property upon dissolution. Similarly, New Jersey's Civil Union Act of 2006 explicitly grants civil union couples all state-derived statutory, administrative, and judicial benefits of marriage, such as spousal maintenance obligations, survivor benefits under workers' compensation, and hospital visitation privileges. These equivalences extend to healthcare and employment-related entitlements, where civil union partners receive spousal access to , survivor annuities, and leave provisions those for married couples. For instance, in , civil union status qualifies partners for state employee benefits and decision-making in medical emergencies, paralleling marital . In , civil unions confer protections under leave laws and assistance programs, ensuring partners are treated as spouses for purposes of eligibility and dependency claims. Such provisions aim to mitigate economic vulnerabilities, as evidenced by legislative findings that without equivalence, partners faced disparities in over 300 state laws governing spousal contracts. However, substantive equivalence is jurisdiction-specific and often limited to domestic law, excluding federal recognition in the United States prior to 2013's United States v. Windsor ruling, which addressed similar issues for marriages but not civil unions directly. In Europe, equivalents vary; while some registered partnerships approximate marital benefits in taxation and succession, France's PACS (Pacte civil de solidarité), introduced in 1999, falls short by lacking full automatic inheritance rights and spousal testimonial privileges, though it offers joint tax filing and property co-ownership. Overall, where equivalence holds, it derives from statutory mirroring of marriage's contractual framework, prioritizing legal parity in economic and decision-making domains without altering symbolic distinctions.

Fundamental Differences in Symbolism and Purpose

Traditional marriage, as historically understood across civilizations, fundamentally serves the purpose of uniting one man and one woman in a publicly recognized institution oriented toward procreation and the stable rearing of children, reflecting biological complementarity and societal needs for reproduction and family formation. This purpose traces to ancient practices where pair-bonding organized sexual conduct and ensured paternal responsibility, fostering generational continuity essential for social stability. Symbolically, marriage embodies enduring exclusivity, often sanctified through religious rites as a covenant mirroring divine order, with cultural rituals emphasizing fertility, lineage, and communal endorsement of opposite-sex unions. Civil unions, by contrast, emerged in the late 20th century primarily as state-level contractual arrangements to extend legal protections—such as inheritance and healthcare decision-making—to same-sex partners without invoking the term "marriage" or its attendant historical connotations. Their purpose centers on pragmatic equivalence in rights and obligations, decoupled from procreative imperatives, as they were designed to sidestep redefinition of marriage's traditional man-woman framework upheld in laws like Canada's pre-2005 definition. Symbolically, civil unions lack the millennia-spanning cultural and religious depth of marriage, functioning more as administrative registrations than public affirmations of familial archetype, often viewed by proponents of tradition as preserving marriage's distinct role in channeling heterosexual relations toward child-rearing. These differences underscore a core divergence: marriage's symbolism and purpose are causally tethered to empirical realities of sexual dimorphism and reproduction, integral to its evolution as a civilizational cornerstone, whereas civil unions prioritize relational equity absent such biological telos, leading to debates where historical rationales for distinction—rooted in tradition and function—clash with claims of mere nomenclature. While some legal scholarship attributes stigma to the label disparity, reflecting institutional biases toward equivalence narratives, the separation maintains marriage's unique public signaling of commitments aligned with natural family structures verifiable through anthropological and demographic data on child outcomes in intact biological-parent households.

Equality Claims and Constitutional Challenges

Advocates for full marriage recognition contended that civil unions, while conferring many contractual benefits equivalent to marriage, failed to deliver substantive equality due to persistent distinctions in terminology, social perception, and institutional recognition, often analogized to "separate but equal" doctrines historically invalidated under equal protection principles. These claims posited that the separate status imposed stigma and practical barriers, such as inconsistent federal and interstate portability, undermining claims of parity. In response, constitutional challenges in various jurisdictions tested whether such distinctions violated anti-discrimination clauses by denying same-sex couples the full dignity and rights associated with marriage. In the United States, the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. State on December 20, 1999, held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage benefits breached the state's Common Benefits Clause, prompting the legislature to establish civil unions effective July 1, 2000, as the remedial measure. However, this framework faced scrutiny for inadequacy; for instance, in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (2008), the Connecticut Supreme Court assessed the civil union-marriage divide and determined that no rational basis justified withholding marriage's designation, given equivalent benefits, leading to marriage equality in the state. Similar arguments prevailed in New Jersey following Lewis v. Harris (2006), where civil unions were initially mandated under the state constitution's equal protection guarantee, but subsequent suits highlighted ongoing disparities in federal recognition and social equivalence, culminating in legislative expansion to marriage in 2013. These cases underscored empirical shortfalls, including civil union couples' exclusion from over 1,100 federal protections until United States v. Windsor (2013) partially addressed DOMA's impact, though full resolution awaited Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which invalidated state-level marriage bans nationwide. Internationally, equality claims have invoked human rights frameworks, with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) evaluating civil unions' sufficiency under the European Convention on Human Rights. In Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (2010), the ECtHR affirmed no absolute right to same-sex marriage but urged states to consider legal recognition mechanisms like civil partnerships for family life protection under Article 8. Subsequent rulings, such as Oliari v. Italy (2015), mandated Italy to legislate civil unions for same-sex couples to remedy discriminatory gaps, rejecting mere cohabitation rights as inadequate for equality. More recently, in cases involving Poland (2024), the ECtHR ruled that denying recognition of foreign same-sex marriages or domestic civil unions violated Article 8 and Article 14 non-discrimination provisions, emphasizing that withholding equivalent legal frameworks perpetuates unequal treatment irrespective of orientation. These decisions reflect a trajectory where civil unions serve as interim equality tools but face challenges when they fall short of marriage's comprehensive scope, often due to jurisdictional inconsistencies or symbolic deficits.

Global Adoption and Current Status

Europe

In Europe, civil unions emerged in the late 1990s as mechanisms to grant legal recognition and partial rights to unmarried couples, particularly same-sex pairs, amid resistance to full marriage equality. France pioneered the Pacte civil de solidarité (PACS) in 1999 through Law No. 99-942, establishing a contractual framework available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike, which includes mutual obligations for material support, shared housing, joint taxation, inheritance rights up to €80,724 exemption per partner, and social security benefits such as survivor pensions, but excludes adoption, automatic spousal inheritance priority, and certain marital presumptions of paternity. By 2022, over 200,000 PACS were registered annually, reflecting its popularity as a flexible alternative to marriage despite lacking full equivalence. Italy introduced civil unions (unioni civili) for same-sex couples via Law No. 76/2016 (Legge Cirinnà), effective June 5, 2016, after parliamentary debate excluded joint adoption and surrogacy access; it provides inheritance, pension, tax, and residency rights nearly mirroring marriage, with over 10,000 unions registered by 2020, though stepchild adoption was later enabled in limited cases by court rulings. Croatia's Life Partnership Act (Official Gazette No. 63/2014), enacted July 15, 2014, grants same-sex couples equivalent rights to marriage in property, inheritance, social security, and family reunification, including joint adoption since 2022 amendments, with registration in a national registry; approximately 500 partnerships were recorded by 2019. Several Eastern European states maintain limited registered partnerships without same-sex marriage: the Czech Republic's framework since 2006 offers inheritance and maintenance duties but no joint filing or adoption; Hungary's 2009 act provides similar partial benefits; Latvia enacted basic civil unions in November 2023 with tax and succession rights; and Lithuania approved limited partnerships in July 2025, focusing on cohabitation proof for health and property claims. Cyprus and Montenegro also recognize partnerships with inheritance and pension access since 2015 and 2021, respectively. EU law facilitates cross-border recognition of registered partnerships for free movement purposes in 20 member states, treating them akin to marriage for residency and property, though variances persist in adoption and dissolution rules. While Nordic countries like Denmark (1989–2012) and Germany (2001–2017) phased out partnerships for marriage, retention in Southern and Eastern Europe often stems from constitutional bans on same-sex marriage or cultural priorities favoring traditional family structures.

Americas

In the United States, civil unions were first established in Vermont on July 1, 2000, following a state supreme court ruling that required equal benefits for same-sex couples under the state constitution, providing state-level spousal rights such as inheritance, medical decision-making, and tax benefits without the federal recognition afforded to marriage. Subsequent adoptions occurred in Connecticut in 2005, New Jersey in 2007, and New Hampshire in 2008, often as interim measures amid debates over full marriage equality. As of 2025, civil unions remain available in five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Vermont—typically open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, though their usage has declined post the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision mandating nationwide same-sex marriage recognition, with many prior unions automatically converted to marriages where applicable. In Canada, Quebec introduced civil unions (unions civiles) on June 6, 2002, granting same-sex couples rights equivalent to marriage in areas like property division, spousal support, and adoption, serving as a precursor to national same-sex marriage legalization in 2005. These remain an active option in Quebec as of 2025, distinct from marriage and de facto unions, with recent reforms emphasizing parental unions for cohabiting couples with children but preserving civil unions for formal registration. Mexico's Federal District (now Mexico City) enacted the Law of Society of Coexistence (Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia) in 2006, allowing same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register partnerships with limited rights including inheritance and social security benefits, though without full parental or immigration equivalences to marriage. Similar "sociedades de convivencia" or civil pacts exist in several states like Coahuila (2007) and Jalisco, persisting alongside nationwide same-sex marriage access since a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, primarily for couples seeking contractual protections without marital status change. In South America, Uruguay pioneered regional civil unions with the 2008 Ley de Unión Concubinaria, the first national law in Latin America recognizing same-sex and opposite-sex cohabiting partnerships with rights to property, pensions, and nationality for children, which transitioned to full marriage in 2013. Bolivia recognized same-sex civil unions following a 2023 Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal ruling, providing economic and inheritance rights but falling short of marriage equivalences amid ongoing debates over fuller recognition. Other nations, such as Ecuador and Chile, implemented civil unions or stable unions in the 2000s–2010s as precursors to marriage legalization, with limited ongoing availability. Central American adoption has been sparse; Costa Rica granted limited civil union recognitions via court rulings starting in 2015 before nationwide marriage in 2020, while countries like El Salvador and Panama offer no formal civil unions, relying on informal cohabitation or pending reforms. Across the Americas, civil unions have often functioned as compromises granting partial state benefits amid resistance to marriage expansion, with transitions to equality reflecting judicial and legislative shifts rather than sustained standalone models.

Asia, Africa, and Oceania

In Africa, formal civil unions for same-sex couples exist solely in South Africa, established by the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006, which took effect on November 30, 2006, and permits two persons of the same sex to conclude a civil union with legal consequences identical to those of marriage regarding property, divorce, and spousal obligations. This framework marked Africa’s first national legal recognition of same-sex unions, though uptake remains low amid broader societal opposition, with same-sex sexual activity criminalized in approximately 30 other African countries as of 2023. In Asia, national-level civil unions for same-sex couples are absent, with legal recognition typically limited to de facto partnerships or foreign validations; Israel, however, extends spousal rights to same-sex couples via administrative registration of common-law partnerships, initiated by a 1994 Supreme Court ruling on pension benefits and expanded through subsequent judicial and legislative actions to include inheritance, taxation, and immigration privileges akin to marital status. No other Asian jurisdictions provide equivalent formal mechanisms, though some nations like Thailand and Nepal have advanced to same-sex marriage as of 2025. Oceania similarly lacks ongoing national civil union systems for same-sex couples, having largely transitioned to full marriage equality in major countries; New Zealand’s Civil Union Act 2004 enabled same-sex civil unions from December 26, 2005, granting rights parallel to marriage until August 19, 2013, when same-sex marriage legislation halted new civil union formations, allowing conversions for existing ones. Australia followed suit with nationwide same-sex marriage effective January 9, 2018, superseding prior subnational partnership registers that offered partial benefits but fell short of comprehensive civil unions. Smaller Pacific states, such as Fiji and Samoa, provide no legal protections for same-sex unions, with homosexuality criminalized in several. French Pacific territories like New Caledonia and French Polynesia permit the PACS (pacte civil de solidarité), a registered partnership for same-sex couples offering fiscal and residency benefits since its 1999 inception, though subordinate to full marriage rights extended in 2013.

Declines and Transitions to Full Marriage Recognition

In jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was legalized, civil unions typically experienced sharp declines in new formations among same-sex couples, who shifted toward the symbolically and legally fuller institution of marriage, while governments often discontinued civil unions as a policy option to avoid parallel systems. This transition reflected the interim role civil unions played as compromises amid ongoing equality debates, with empirical data showing reduced uptake once marriage became available. For instance, in the United States, the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision nationwide mandated marriage recognition, prompting states with prior civil unions—such as Illinois (enacted 2011), Delaware (2012), and Colorado (2013)—to phase out new registrations, converting or grandfathering existing ones to align with uniform marriage laws. Specific U.S. states exemplified rapid policy shifts: Vermont, the first to establish civil unions in July 2000 following Baker v. State, legalized same-sex marriage effective September 1, 2009, and immediately halted new civil unions, offering conversions for pre-existing ones to mitigate administrative disparities. New Jersey, which introduced civil unions in February 2007 after a state supreme court ruling, transitioned to marriage on October 21, 2013, via a superior court decision in Garden State Equality v. Dow, which deemed civil unions insufficient for equal protection; new civil unions ceased, with a statutory process enabling conversions. These changes aligned with federal benefits access, as civil unions had faced limitations in interstate and federal recognition compared to marriage. In Europe, similar patterns emerged, though with variations. The United Kingdom's civil partnerships, limited to same-sex couples since December 2005, plummeted 85% in formations after same-sex marriage began in March 2014, dropping from thousands annually to negligible numbers as couples pursued marriage's cultural weight. Norway directly replaced its 1993-registered partnerships with marriage in 2009, eliminating the separate status. France's PACS, introduced in 1999 and open to all couples by 2007, saw overall registrations surge to over 190,000 by 2016 due to heterosexual adoption, but same-sex PACS as a share stabilized at about 4.9% while same-sex marriages exceeded 39,000 from 2013 to 2017 following the "mariage pour tous" law, indicating preference for marriage among same-sex pairs despite PACS persistence. This selective decline underscored civil unions' role as a bridge, often eroded by demands for equivalence, though in mixed-use systems like France's, they endured for pragmatic reasons.

Debates, Controversies, and Policy Rationales

Arguments for Civil Unions as a Neutral Compromise

Proponents of civil unions posit them as a neutral compromise by decoupling legal protections from the symbolic and cultural weight of marriage, thereby granting same-sex couples access to critical benefits like tax exemptions, pension survivorship, and medical decision-making authority without altering the historical understanding of marriage as a union oriented toward opposite-sex complementarity and procreation. This separation insulates policy from objections rooted in tradition, religion, or anthropology that view marriage as inherently tied to biological sex differences, allowing governments to address verifiable disparities in partner rights while upholding pluralism in societal norms. Legislatively, civil unions enable democratic resolution of equality claims through incremental reform rather than sweeping judicial mandates, fostering compromise among stakeholders. In Vermont, after the state Supreme Court's 1999 Baker v. State decision required equivalent benefits for same-sex couples but stopped short of mandating marriage access, lawmakers passed the Civil Unions Act on April 26, 2000, establishing a distinct legal status that mirrored marital privileges statewide while explicitly excluding the marriage label to honor traditional definitions. This measure, signed by Governor Howard Dean, balanced constitutional imperatives with cultural restraint, averting a more divisive overhaul. The United Kingdom's Civil Partnership Act 2004 exemplifies a similar rationale, providing same-sex couples with over 70 statutory rights paralleling marriage—ranging from inheritance to immigration preferences—via a secular registration process that avoided reconfiguring religious or customary marriage ceremonies. Advocates argued this framework neutralized opposition by preserving marriage's unique social signaling, promoting relational stability through enforceable commitments without compelling societal endorsement of equivalence. Critically, this compromise sidesteps the causal risks of conflating legal parity with ontological sameness, as redefining marriage could erode incentives for opposite-sex pairings linked to child welfare outcomes, per demographic data showing stable two-parent households' advantages. By focusing on contractual utilities, civil unions prioritize empirical needs over ideological uniformity, enabling tailored protections that empirical studies associate with reduced relational dissolution when formalized, irrespective of terminology.

Traditionalist and Religious Objections

The Catholic Church has consistently opposed legal recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples, arguing that such measures obscure the essential difference between marital unions, which are ordered toward procreation and the good of spouses, and other forms of cohabitation. In a 2003 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church stated that "respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions," as this would contradict the natural law and divine revelation regarding marriage as exclusively between man and woman. This position reflects a broader theological objection that civil unions imply moral equivalence to marriage, thereby undermining the state's role in promoting family structures conducive to child-rearing by biologically complementary parents. Evangelical Christians and other Protestant groups have echoed similar concerns, viewing civil unions as a governmental endorsement of sexual relationships outside biblical norms, which they interpret as sinful based on passages such as Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In Vermont's 2000 enactment of civil unions—the first in the U.S.—opposition from evangelical organizations and the religious right was intense, with campaigns framing the law as a threat to traditional family values and children's welfare, leading to political mobilization that nearly altered the state's legislative balance in subsequent elections. Groups like the Family Research Council maintain that recognizing non-procreative unions erodes societal incentives for stable, opposite-sex marriages optimal for offspring, citing social science data on child outcomes in intact biological families. Orthodox Judaism prohibits homosexual conduct and limits marriage recognition to heterosexual unions, with organizations such as the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations rejecting civil equivalents that normalize same-sex partnerships as incompatible with halakhic principles derived from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Islamic teachings similarly deem homosexual acts haram, with scholars arguing that civil unions violate Sharia by extending marital-like benefits to unions absent complementary roles for procreation and family stability, as emphasized in Quranic verses like Al-A'raf 7:80-81. Traditionalist thinkers, drawing from first-principles reasoning about human sexuality's teleological purpose, contend that civil unions dilute marriage's symbolic distinction as a public good tied to reproduction, potentially increasing relational instability and state burdens without corresponding societal benefits, as evidenced by post-legalization trends in jurisdictions like Vermont where civil unions transitioned to full marriage amid ongoing debates over family metrics.

Critiques from Marriage Equality Proponents

Proponents of marriage equality have argued that civil unions establish a form of "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples, inherently reinforcing inequality akin to historical racial segregation doctrines rejected by courts. This perspective holds that designating a parallel institution for same-sex relationships signals inferiority, failing to confer the full dignity and social normalization associated with marriage. Legally, civil unions have been critiqued for providing incomplete protections, particularly in federal contexts prior to nationwide marriage recognition. For instance, under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted in 1996, civil unions were not afforded federal benefits such as spousal Social Security survivor payments, immigration sponsorship, or tax filing advantages available to married couples. In 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that offering civil unions but denying marriage violated the state constitution's equal protection clause, as the distinction imposed a stigma and practical barriers not faced by opposite-sex couples. Similarly, advocates noted portability issues, where civil unions registered in one jurisdiction, such as Vermont's 2000 law, were often unrecognized elsewhere, complicating relocation or interstate matters like inheritance. Socially, marriage equality supporters contend that civil unions perpetuate stigma by excluding same-sex couples from the cultural and symbolic weight of marriage, which carries historical and communal significance beyond legal formalities. Organizations like the ACLU have emphasized that this separation fosters perceptions of second-class citizenship, undermining family stability and public acceptance; for example, same-sex couples in civil unions reported difficulties in employer-provided health benefits or hospital visitation due to inconsistent recognition. Empirical observations from early adopters, such as California's domestic partnerships before 2008, showed ongoing advocacy for marriage as couples experienced these disparities firsthand, leading to transitions like Vermont's shift to marriage in 2009 after nearly a decade of civil unions. Critics within this camp, including legal scholars, have dismissed civil unions as a political compromise designed to delay full equality rather than achieve it, arguing that parallel systems inevitably erode over time without addressing root demands for inclusion in the marital institution. This view posits that true parity requires identical terminology and access to eliminate both tangible and intangible harms, as evidenced by the rapid post-civil union pushes for marriage in jurisdictions like Connecticut and New Hampshire by 2010.

Slippery Slope Concerns and Observed Policy Trajectories

Opponents of civil unions frequently raised slippery slope concerns, arguing that granting near-marital rights to same-sex couples via civil unions would inevitably fuel demands for full marriage recognition, as the underlying equality rationale would extend to symbolic and terminological parity without a principled stopping point. This perspective held that civil unions, intended as a compromise preserving the traditional definition of marriage, would erode distinctions over time through judicial or legislative creep, driven by activist litigation and shifting norms. Empirical trajectories in multiple jurisdictions substantiate these concerns, with civil unions often serving as transitional mechanisms before full same-sex marriage legalization. In Vermont, the first U.S. state to enact civil unions on July 1, 2000, following the Baker v. State ruling, these arrangements provided state-level benefits equivalent to marriage but explicitly excluded the marital title; however, the legislature replaced them with same-sex marriage effective April 7, 2009, after sustained advocacy and court pressures. Similarly, Denmark pioneered registered partnerships on October 1, 1989—the world's first such law granting most marital rights except adoption and church weddings—which evolved into full same-sex marriage on June 12, 2012, amid broader European harmonization. France's PACS (Pacte civil de solidarité), introduced November 9, 1999, as a neutral civil contract for unmarried couples including same-sex pairs with tax and inheritance benefits but no marital status, faced analogous progression; it culminated in the "mariage pour tous" law legalizing same-sex marriage on May 18, 2013, after parliamentary debates highlighting PACS inadequacies for full equality. This pattern recurs elsewhere, such as the United Kingdom's Civil Partnership Act of 2004 (effective December 2005), which expanded to opposite-sex couples in 2019 before same-sex marriage in 2014, illustrating how initial restrictions dissolved under equivalence pressures. In jurisdictions retaining civil unions without marriage, such as Croatia's Life Partnership Act of 2014, expansions in rights (e.g., 2021 amendments for gender changes) suggest ongoing erosion rather than stabilization. These outcomes indicate that civil unions rarely endured as permanent compromises, with over 30 countries transitioning from partnership regimes to marriage by 2025, per global legal trackers.

Empirical Outcomes and Societal Impacts

Civil unions typically confer state or jurisdictional-level legal rights analogous to those of marriage, such as automatic inheritance rights in the absence of a will, spousal testimonial privilege in court proceedings, authority for medical decision-making, and eligibility for joint state tax filing and property rights upon dissolution. However, these rights have historically been limited in scope compared to marriage due to non-portability across jurisdictions; for instance, a civil union registered in Vermont in 2000 was not automatically recognized in other U.S. states, necessitating additional legal documentation or court challenges for enforcement of benefits like pension survivorship or hospital visitation. Federally, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in on , , which struck down key provisions of the Defense of Act, civil unions did not qualify couples for federal benefits including Social survivor payments, immigration sponsorship for non-citizen partners, or federal estate tax exemptions, resulting in an estimated annual loss of up to $1,000 in federal tax advantages for some couples compared to married counterparts. Even post-Windsor, civil unions remained ineligible for full federal recognition until in mandated nationwide same-sex marriage, highlighting administrative gaps where civil union partners faced denials in federal programs like veterans' benefits or Medicare coordination. In jurisdictions retaining civil unions, such as Colorado's designation for seniors since , administrative processes mirror marriage licensing but exclude certain symbolic elements like name changes without court order, reducing procedural simplicity for participants. Implementation of civil unions has imposed administrative burdens on legal systems, including the need to amend statutes for over 1,000 state-level rights in places like Vermont, where the 2000 law prompted updates to probate, family, and tax codes, leading to initial training for court clerks and increased filings—over 9,000 civil unions by 2009 before transition to marriage. Dissolution procedures often follow divorce protocols but have generated case law on asset division and child custody, with empirical data from early adopters showing higher rates of interstate recognition disputes compared to marriages, as courts weighed "public policy" exceptions. These effects underscore civil unions' role as an interim framework that mitigated some relational vulnerabilities but perpetuated legal fragmentation until fuller marriage equivalence.

Relationship Stability Data

Empirical studies on the stability of civil unions, often encompassing registered partnerships or similar formal recognitions primarily for same-sex couples, indicate generally higher dissolution rates compared to opposite-sex marriages, with notable variations by gender composition. In particular, female-female unions exhibit elevated risks, frequently 50% or more higher than opposite-sex marriages, while male-male unions show risks closer to or slightly exceeding those of opposite-sex pairs. These patterns hold across datasets from early adopters like Nordic countries, where registered partnerships predated same-sex marriage; for instance, short-term dissolution rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden exceeded those of opposite-sex marriages. In the United Kingdom, official statistics for civil partnerships (predominantly same-sex) reveal dissolution rates of 11.2 per 1,000 for female couples and 7.4 per 1,000 for male couples in 2023, compared to approximately 6.6 per 1,000 for opposite-sex divorces in the same period. Longitudinal data from Sweden spanning 1995–2012, including converted registered partnerships, confirm persistently higher divorce hazards for same-sex unions, though risks have moderated over time and childbearing within the union reduces dissolution probability, particularly for female couples. Formal recognition via civil union appears to enhance stability relative to informal cohabitation; a Vermont study found breakup rates over three years at 9.3% for same-sex couples without civil unions, lower for those with them, though still trailing opposite-sex marriage benchmarks. For France's PACS (open to both same- and opposite-sex couples but with significant same-sex uptake), dissolution rates stabilized after initial increases, reaching around 10% cumulatively in early cohorts—lower than the one-in-three divorce rate for comparable-duration marriages—despite unilateral dissolution being simpler than divorce procedures. However, same-sex PACS specifically show higher dissolution than opposite-sex ones, aligning with broader European trends. Factors contributing to differential stability include weaker normative barriers to exit in same-sex unions and gender-specific dynamics, such as higher conflict resolution challenges in female pairs, though selection effects (e.g., later union formation ages) may partly explain persistence. Overall, while data gaps persist due to transitions to full marriage recognition, the evidence underscores lower average durability for civil unions versus traditional marriages.

Broader Social and Familial Consequences

Civil unions, by providing legal protections akin to marriage for same-sex couples, have enabled greater family formation among such partnerships, including adoption and parenting, yet longitudinal data reveal disparities in child well-being compared to traditional nuclear families. The New Family Structures Study (NFSS), surveying over 2,900 U.S. adults aged 18-39 in 2011, found that respondents raised by a lesbian mother were 2.6 times more likely to report being on public assistance as adults and 1.7 times more likely to have been unemployed, while those raised by a gay father showed 2.4 times higher rates of depression, relative to peers from intact biological heterosexual families; these outcomes persisted even after controlling for family transitions, suggesting inherent stability differences in same-sex unions often formalized via civil unions or equivalents. Critiques of pro-equivalence research highlight methodological flaws, such as reliance on small, convenience samples of stable same-sex families that underrepresent instability rates exceeding 50% in such households, per NFSS data, which correlates with poorer emotional and academic outcomes akin to those in single-parent or stepfamily structures. In contrast, aggregate reviews claiming parity across 79 studies have been faulted for excluding dissenting peer-reviewed work and conflating short-term snapshots with long-term causal effects, potentially overstating benefits while academic institutions exhibit systemic biases favoring affirmative findings on non-traditional families. On a societal level, civil union legalization has not demonstrably altered heterosexual marriage rates, with analyses of U.S. states implementing such policies showing no decline in opposite-sex unions post-adoption, as marriage rates continued pre-existing trends driven by economic and cultural factors rather than direct substitution. However, broader familial shifts include accelerated cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing overall, with U.S. data indicating over 40% of children born to unmarried parents by the 2010s, a pattern exacerbated by normalizing alternative unions that may diminish incentives for traditional marriage's stability premiums, evidenced by children in intact married biological families outperforming others in health and socioeconomic metrics by 20-50% across metrics. For participants, civil unions correlate with reduced minority , including lower depressive symptoms and stigma in jurisdictions like Vermont post-2000 legalization, though these gains are participant-specific and do not extend empirically to societal fertility or family cohesion metrics, where traditional structures retain causal advantages in intergenerational transmission.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_union
  2. https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes
  3. https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-partnerships/what-is-a-civil-union.html
  4. https://www.mynbc5.com/article/from-the-archives-vermont-becomes-first-state-to-introduce-civil-unions/30337708
  5. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2637&context=faculty_scholarship
  6. https://www.metlife.com/stories/legal/civil-union-vs-marriage/
  7. https://www.brides.com/the-difference-between-marriage-and-civil-unions-2170860
  8. https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html
  9. https://database.ilga.org/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions
  10. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/marriage-equality-around-world
  11. https://www.hrc.org/our-work/stories/the-journey-to-marriage-equality-in-the-united-states
  12. https://www.now.org/resource/civil-marriage-v-civil-unions/
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_union_partners
  14. https://www.northwesternmutual.com/life-and-money/civil-union-vs-marriage-financial-pros-cons/
  15. https://gbfamilylaw.com/blogs/what-is-a-civil-union/
  16. https://www.isba.org/sections/familylaw/newsletter/2011/02/afirstlookattheillinoiscivilunionact
  17. https://clerk2.kanecountyil.gov/VitalRecords/Pages/Civil-Union-License.aspx
  18. https://www.plogsteinlaw.com/similarities-differences-civil-unions-common-law-marriages/
  19. https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/21-06-2024/marriage-civil-union-or-de-facto-in-2024-which-one-should-you-choose
  20. https://www.etatcivil.gouv.qc.ca/en/marriage/unions.html
  21. https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3294&ChapterID=59&Print=True
  22. https://youthlaw.co.nz/rights/sex-relationships/marriage-civil-unions-de-facto/
  23. https://www.isba.org/ibj/2011/05/aguidetothenewillinoiscivilunionlaw
  24. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-civil-partnership-legal-differences/
  25. https://academic.oup.com/book/11178/chapter/159653603
  26. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/736/A_History_of_Same_Sex_Marriage.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  27. https://firstthings.com/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history/
  28. https://brewminate.com/ancient-same-sex-unions-historiographical-analysis-of-adelphopoiesis-in-early-christianity/
  29. https://lesbemums.com/lgbtq/the-history-of-gay-marriage-from-the-ancients-to-gen-z/
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt20d88rd
  31. https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces
  32. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240926-when-denmark-held-the-first-ever-same-sex-civil-unions
  33. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2007/07/11/samesex-marriage-redefining-legal-unions-around-the-world/
  34. https://splash-db.eu/?tx_perfar_policydocument%5Baction%5D=show&tx_perfar_policydocument%5Bcontroller%5D=Policydocument&tx_perfar_policydocument%5Bpolicydocument%5D=229&cHash=a713146cfb10e5e19a4bb3673d527e42
  35. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/future-of-registered-partnerships/registered-partnerships-in-denmark/DE7645D60210C367D9CA3985A74177DF
  36. https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/summer-2014-1989-and-the-making-of-our-modern-world/denmarks-civil-unions-one-giant-leap-for-mankind
  37. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/24/a-history-of-same-sex-unions-in-europe
  38. https://outrightinternational.org/insights/lgbtiq-family-recognition-milestones-1990-comprehensive-global-timeline
  39. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=faculty_scholarship
  40. https://lambdalegal.org/case/baker-v-vermont/
  41. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/an-act-relating-to-civil-unions-2000
  42. https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/johnson.pdf
  43. https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/87/
  44. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1512&context=psilr
  45. https://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Relationship_Recognition.pdf
  46. https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume20/winter2011/2.Kindregan.pdf
  47. https://www.vermontpublic.org/show/vermont-edition/2025-06-26/the-25th-anniversary-of-civil-unions-in-vermont
  48. https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/access-to-registered-same-sex-partnerships-it-s-a-question-of-equality
  49. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/15/023/01204
  50. https://idoi.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/insurance/companies/documents/Civil-Union-FAQ-Sheet.pdf
  51. https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases07/ag-formal-opinion-2.16.07.pdf
  52. https://www.masters-lawgroup.com/news/the-pros-and-cons-of-civil-unions/
  53. https://www.sherbertlaw.com/blog/tag/civil-union-facts/
  54. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/15/023
  55. https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/family/divorce/civil-union-and-dissolution
  56. https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-partnerships/1999-civil-unions-in-vermont.html
  57. https://www.masters-lawgroup.com/uncategorized/why-some-couples-choose-civil-unions-over-marriage/
  58. https://www.justia.com/lgbtq/family-law-divorce/domestic-partnerships-civil-unions/
  59. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/118/1/349/69577/The-Effects-of-Marriage-Civil-Union-and-Domestic
  60. https://www.coresdivorcelawyers.com/wheaton-divorce-lawyer/what-is-the-difference-between-a-marriage-and-a-civil-union-in-illinois
  61. https://www.kentingtons.com/news-blog/tax-planning/pacs-france/
  62. https://fr.usembassy.gov/services/marriage-and-civil-partnerships-pacs-in-france/
  63. https://www.proskauer.com/alert/a-trend-toward-state-recognition-of-same-sex-civil-unions
  64. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/couple/registered-partners/index_en.htm
  65. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/ALDE_00013015/
  66. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1324/
  67. https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/fs/160/
  68. https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/9c0f0faf-4a93-526b-a394-071a14f9c942/content
  69. https://www.avemarialaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Issue-2-Sack.pdf
  70. https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=sdlrev
  71. https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM010208.html
  72. https://www.hellervisalaw.com/family-immigration/love-american-style/
  73. https://familylawadvocate.com/civil-unions-and-international-travel/
  74. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1353&context=penn_law_review
  75. https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2006/pl06/103_.htm
  76. https://riker.com/publications/new-jersey-civil-unions-what-you-and-your-partner-need-to-know/
  77. https://www.sherbertlaw.com/blog/the-difference-between-marriage-and-civil-union/
  78. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0342.htm
  79. https://www.connexionfrance.com/practical/what-are-the-financial-advantages-of-a-french-civil-partnership/119292
  80. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1713&context=jcred
  81. https://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
  82. https://www.nas.org/articles/Marriage_and_Family_in_Western_Civilization
  83. https://anglicancompass.com/for-the-procreation-of-children-the-first-purpose-of-marriage/
  84. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/04/the-historical-and-christian-roots-of-marriage.html
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354270106_Marriage_versus_Civil_Unions
  86. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2005/01/same-sex-marriage/
  87. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=jcl
  88. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=law_review
  89. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3260&context=vlr
  90. https://aci.princeton.edu/document/69
  91. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/stunning-civil-rights-victory-vt-court-directs-state-give-same-sex-couples-marriage
  92. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/
  93. https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/right-to-equality-and-freedom-from-discrimination
  94. https://www.eipa.eu/blog/the-european-court-of-human-rights-advancing-legal-recognition-of-same-sex-couples-across-europe/
  95. https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/poland/joint-statement-welcoming-european-court-judgement-on-poland-s
  96. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09649069.2025.2499387?src=
  97. https://www.notaires.fr/en/couple-family/civil-union-solidarity-civil-pact-pacs
  98. https://detulliolawfirm.com/gay-weddings-in-italy-the-legal-landscape/
  99. https://www.notariato.it/en/famiglia/civil-unions/
  100. https://mpudt.gov.hr/life-partnership-registered-partnership/25363
  101. https://gov.hr/en/entry-into-a-civil-partnership/684
  102. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/civil-justice/family-law/property-international-couples-marriages-and-registered-partnerships_en
  103. https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world
  104. https://www.quebec.ca/en/family-and-support-for-individuals/marriage-civil-union-de-facto-union
  105. https://www.congresocdmx.gob.mx/archivos/transparencia/LEY_DE_SOCIEDAD_DE_CONVIVENCIA_PARA_LA_CIUDAD_DE_MEXICO.pdf
  106. https://legalrepresentationmexico.com/marriage-and-civil-union-in-mexico/
  107. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uruguay-oks-gay-unions-in-latin-american-first-idUSN18540390/
  108. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/bolivia
  109. https://www.equaldex.com/issue/marriage
  110. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2015/06/03/costa-rica-recognizes-first-same-sex-civil-union-in-central-america/
  111. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234
  112. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/countries-legalized-same-sex-relationships-africa/
  113. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/asia/same-sex-marriage-in-asia-intl-hnk
  114. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9502/
  115. https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-partnerships/which-states-have-civil-unions.html
  116. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages
  117. https://www.gladlaw.org/issues/domestic-partnerships-civil-unions-vermont/
  118. https://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/lgbt/same-sex-marriage/
  119. https://verdict.justia.com/2015/11/24/though-obsolete-the-civil-union-continues-to-mystify-courts
  120. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37307459
  121. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7856/
  122. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/same-sex-marriage-around-the-world/
  123. https://shs.cairn.info/journal-population-2019-4-page-465?lang=en
  124. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/04/23/ten-years-of-same-sex-marriage-in-france-in-graphs_6023942_7.html
  125. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=ijlse
  126. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/same-sex-marriage/
  127. https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/impact_200702_marriage-no-other-name.pdf
  128. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=wmjowl
  129. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2004-04-22/debates/25b867d2-4830-48bf-a33f-d9f228a8db8c/CivilPartnershipBillHl
  130. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=jlpp
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4940330/
  132. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/letter-mom-about-marriage
  133. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/improbable-victory-marriage-equality
  134. https://www.uclalawreview.org/framing-inequality-for-same-sex-couples/
  135. https://www.preblestreet.org/2012/10/24/in-the-debate-about-same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-fall-short/
  136. https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/marriage-or-bust-civil-unions-are-not-enough/210184/
  137. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=articles
  138. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/532/what-are-the-objections-to-federally-recognized-civil-unions-as-opposed-to-same
  139. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/02-DAJ5-Volokh.pdf
  140. https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651233/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-gay-marriage-movement
  141. https://marryabroadsimply.com/articles/denmarks-lgbtq-marriage-laws
  142. https://www.freedomtomarryglobal.org/countries/denmark
  143. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0410.htm
  144. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=mlr
  145. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.22587
  146. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569490925000139
  147. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-019-00847-6
  148. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2023
  149. https://reason.com/2014/10/17/gay-and-heterosexual-marriages-are-equal/
  150. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Evolution-of-the-rate-of-dissolution-of-pacs-for-1000-pacs_tbl3_237138102
  151. https://ccpr.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Stability-of-Same-Sex-Cohabitation_-Different-Sex-Cohabitation_-and-Marriage.pdf
  152. https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Regnerus.pdf
  153. https://sociologicalscience.com/download/volume-2/september/SocSci_v2_478to501.pdf
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4240051/
  155. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9901573/
  157. https://phys.org/news/2013-06-traditional-marriage-unaffected-states-same-sex.html
  158. https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2411/files/media/marriage_and_child_wellbeing_revisited_25_2_full_journal.pdf
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7907839/
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953616305433
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.