The basic question is whether any couple who has met, fallen in love, decided to form a committed permanent relationship, and applied to the state for a marriage license should be: routinely given a marriage license, and should subsequently be granted the 500 or so benefits and responsibilities given by the state government to all married couples; or whether such benefits and responsibilities should be restricted to opposite-sex couples as they are now; or whether a parallel system of civil unions should be created with all of the advantages and obligations of marriage, but called by a different name. In this way, a man and a woman could be married, two men could be civil unionized, and two women could be civil unionized. All would receive equivalent recognition by the state.
Many moral and legal issues come with the controversial subject of same-sex marriages and civil unions and do add weight to the argument. The decision to marry another person, regardless of sex, is a personal decision and should not involve anyone but the two faced with the decision. Morally you should have the right to be able to marry whom so ever you choose, providing neither they nor you are currently engaged in another marriage. Nothing states in the Constitution says otherwise. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled marriage a fundamental right under the Constitution. Also found under Article IV. Section 2 Clause 1, the Constitution states, that, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states." Which means that by Vermont allowing civil unions, all states should allow the legal unions. The neglect of acting upon this clause is highly unconstitutional. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the inappropriately named "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). By defining marriage as " the legal union between one man and one woman." It prevents same-sex couples from receiving survivor and pension benefits, tax breaks, and other advantages married couples receive.