You asked for a brief comparison of same-sex civil marriage and civil unions.

Both civil marriage and civil unions are creatures of state law and, in general, each state legislature can define them and specify the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from them. No state allows same-sex couples to marry, and only one, Vermont, permits them to be joined in civil unions. Vermont's civil union law was passed after its supreme court ruled that the state constitution guarantees same-sex couples all of the protections and benefits the state provides to married heterosexual couples.

We enclose a pamphlet published by Vermont's Secretary of State that describes the eligibility criteria and legal consequences of entering into civil unions. Other states, not bound by the Vermont Constitution, could enact civil union laws with different provisions, subject to any limitations that their own constitutions might require.

Proponents of laws permitting same-sex couples to marry have argued that civil union laws do not give them the same benefits as marriage. In their view, requiring same-sex couples to go through a different process is inherently stigmatizing and deprives their unions of the cultural status associated with marriage.

They also argue that while other states generally recognize the validity of marriages performed elsewhere, they need not afford parties to out-of-state civil unions the same benefits that they give to married couples. This could mean that same-sex couples whose union is valid in Vermont lose the privileges and benefits associated with this status (such as the right to visit their partner in a hospital) when they leave the state.

Those opposing both same-sex unions and marriage maintain that individual states cannot be forced to recognize either of these civil relationships, even if other states do. They rely on a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifies this, as well as court precedents permitting states to refuse to recognize the validity of other states' laws if doing so would violate a strongly held public policy.

The legal arguments on both sides are complex and theoretical, and have not yet been tested in the courts.

SP-L:eh