Well, it depends on what you mean by "commonly understood under civil union umbrella". A lot of people mistakenly believe that civil unions are just a separate-but-equal version of marriage. That version of civil unions is a fairy tale.
Speaking as one member of a couple that finally gave up on making a civil union work and went ahead with an actual marriage a few years back, I can say that there's a night-and-day difference between the two. The institutional benefits that were available to us as a legally recognized civil union could be counted on one hand, and most of them were still not quite the same as what married people get. People who only have a civil union aren't allowed to share health savings accounts the way married people can, for example. The number of finacial and convenience perks we acquired the day after our marriage license got filed with the county clerk, on the other hand, are practically innumerable.
We feel like shits for exercising the privilege we enjoy as a heterosexual couple. But we're getting pragmatic in our old age, so here we are.
Whatever you understand under "civil union", prop 8 was not about it. It was specifically about "marriage". All the rest was already covered by California law. You can say it looks like "separate but equal" and benefits and other equality measures in domestic partnerships are not enough and only full recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage" is true equality. That's fine. But that doesn't make those who supported prop 8 opposition to civil unions or domestic partnerships as they are called in CA - in fact, domestic partnerships by that time in California were done deal and had the same status with regard to all law and benefits as marriage. But they could not be called marriage and were separate and different status. That was what prop 8 was about, not opposition to civil unions. Those are just different things.
> in fact, domestic partnerships by that time in California were done deal and had the same status with regard to all law and benefits as marriage.
They couldn't have. The federal government does not recognize civil unions, and many of the benefits of marriage come in through federal law. Even with that corner of DOMA being repealed, a state can still effectively cut people off from the vast majority of marriage benefits simply by offering only "civil unions" and not true marriage.
Your misunderstanding of this point is exactly what I was getting at with the post above - one characteristic that is inextricably linked to things like the Prop 8 debate is that a huge percentage of people taking part in it simply don't understand the basic facts of the situation.
I wasn't talking about federal benefits, I was talking about California specifically and the state law in California.
What I am not getting here is how California could control federal benefits? Could you specify which vast majority of benefits prop 8 would cut off? It certainly does not include insurance, taxes, pension, unemployment & disability benefits, survivor benefits, etc. as I see that those are covered by California domestic partnership law. As for federal ones, doesn't federal government controls those? Obama issuing regulation to equate benefits of domestic partnerships to those of marriages certainly suggests it is under federal control - otherwise why would the President do it?
Speaking as one member of a couple that finally gave up on making a civil union work and went ahead with an actual marriage a few years back, I can say that there's a night-and-day difference between the two. The institutional benefits that were available to us as a legally recognized civil union could be counted on one hand, and most of them were still not quite the same as what married people get. People who only have a civil union aren't allowed to share health savings accounts the way married people can, for example. The number of finacial and convenience perks we acquired the day after our marriage license got filed with the county clerk, on the other hand, are practically innumerable.
We feel like shits for exercising the privilege we enjoy as a heterosexual couple. But we're getting pragmatic in our old age, so here we are.