We need to look at what was intention of those promoting such a law, what was the end result one wanted to achieve and what was actually achieved.

If one was trying to obtain the legal rights of married couples then such rights should be given to all those who cohabit a residence in which they have financial obligatory or supportive responsibilities to one or more parties that occupy the household. Therefore siblings, parent/child or just ‘best friends’ who look to establish a permanent household should have the ability to enter into a contract that has the same benefits as marriage contracts. This can be achieved by a simple ‘household’ contract. Therefore any two people or group of persons should be able to established a co habitation situation with legal protections.

This would make civil unions between people of the same sex who want to co habit to receive the same legal benefits of married couples a moot point.

Unless it was the intention of people who want to enter into long-standing sexual relationship with the same sex to have social acceptance via changing the universal and historical lived out experience of marriage – as between different sexes for the purpose of procreation to raise children for society and to be financially responsible to them and each other – then they are not necessarily achieve their goal.

In my opinion there is no reason to have civil unions for same sex couple just to give such household members certain legal rights. Those who live in multigenerational or non relations households – and who do not share in sexual relations with each other – are not getting the same protection or rights.

So what’s the purpose of civil unions?