Should Catholics support civil unions?

I’d say they should. I think there’s a differerence between civil marriage where the definition of marriage is redefined and civil union. But I’m only ok with civil union in the context of two platonic friends (same or opposite sex) not the assumption of civil marriage which is where two people behave inappropriately.

In other words, I don’t think we need to redefine marriage to mean a union between a man and a woman but we do need to redefine a civil union to mean two (or more) close friends who share a common association and agree to live as roommates but to have a prescribed legal remedy both for getting together and dissolution. A civil union should have the same rights and privileges of marriage until someone marries an opposite sex partner which supercedes the civil union and results in property and rights division (similar to civil divorce). Even though sexual intimacy within a civil union is an immoral result, the ability for people to share resources and rights seems like a greater good. My greatest issue with a civil union would be if it became an impediment to traditional marriage which is the union between a man and a woman for the intent of the procreation of children.

I am a married man. I think marriage is the union between a man and a woman meant for the procreation of children. I feel a civil union on the other hand is an agreement between two people to share resources and other tenative benefits typically associated with marriage, such as being a next of kin, marital confidentiality in court, an ability to get spousal support, and an ability to share property.



No. Not only is it a terrible idea to support civil unions it borders on being sinful.


Does it border on sinful for the couple or for simply believing in or supporting civil unions?

Is the scandal of a civil union sinful or is it only the same-sex attraction and inappropriate acts sinful?

Well for it to be mortally sinful, the action must be grave matter (which it is), the person needs to have full knowledge it is grave matter, and the person must give their full consent to the action. I cannot say certainly is for every person who does the action (supports OR participates) in civil unions. But they most definitely are a grave matter and a grave evil on society.

Scandal is a grave matter and the inappropriate relationships and acts of those relationships are grave matter. The same-sex attraction itself is not because one cannot give full consent to that attraction. It is disordered but does not jeopardize one’s soul.

Is there any demand for it from such sources?


I have a hard time with seeing only the scandal itself (aka the appearance of sexual intimacy) as being grave matter but more what a civil marriage represents, but I agree that actual engagement in sexual activity in an immoral relationship is where the grave matter sin exists.

I work really hard to be a conformist and tend to be far more skeptical of authority so for me, it is important that we have the context right before we pass judgment.

Don’t think so. I am simply thinking of two best friends who want a civil union because they are both chaste and want to share health insurance, property rights, and have a way to handle dissolution. Of course, you could always go see an attorney and setup a partnership agreement instead, have a living will and list your best friend as a health care proxy and healthcare power of attorney in the event of incapacity, and own title as either tenants in common or joint tenancy. Of course this wouldn’t work for getting health insurance OR being able to get friendship support if you broke off / aka divorced your friendship. I am probably way over-thinking this one and thus strecthing the realm of reality.

But I tend to think of a civil union as something where two best friends could get together, instead of marriage where it has to be two opposite sex romantic people.

But marriage denotes sexual intercourse. In fact, if you do not or cannot have sex your marriage is annulled in the Catholic Church. It is essential. So of course with that context in what the Church itself teaches it is scandal to promote such evil laws.


Agreed. And two people of the same sex are unable to achieve intercourse. Is there a difference between civil union / domestic partnership laws and civil marriage laws or am I misunderstanding?

I tend to think of civil union laws as any union (which came off the books when immoral civil marriage laws became the law of the land) and civil marriage to be a sexual union between a man and a woman.

No but they are able to commit abhorrent sexual acts which is what these civil union laws would imply. Is taking place.

No they are just a proxy word for marriage.

1 Like

Thanks for your understanding. I wanted to believe it was something different.

I tend to be a non-conformist so I try to see the best in things or like to figure out how to make immoral things less immoral or to improve how people behave when they originally made immoral decisions. I guess that makes me an enabler, maybe a tad bit naive or innocent, and an annoying people-pleaser.

In some alternate universe where everyone believed and agreed in a set of moral principles it might, but ultimately we do not live in such a world and there would be no need for such laws anyway. It is just a way for homosexual activists to destroy the institution of marriage which in society they have. Now they are coming after the Church.

1 Like

+1 I think that was shown in the miracle at Fatima more than a century ago. It was also shown in the end-times that immoral unions would redefine marriage and make it look ok even to the most faithful.

Thanks for your extremely kind response, especially since I tend to get stuck in the theoretical.

1 Like

Of course. How are we expected to understand our world without asking questions and learning from one another


I don’t think I’d support it, unless it leads to a clearer understanding that it will never equal marriage and therefore never threaten the right for organizations (e.g. adoption agencies) to determine eligible clients.

While not supporting civil unions, I don’t see it as something to fight, either. The claim that it’s needed I think is exaggerated, but not especially so compared to how a lot of things work in our society.

To a degree, though they are legally distinct. They have been long rejected by the gay community as 2nd rate.

1 Like

Which was my problem with the gay community.

In theory, but it was clearly a means to an end to destroy the institution of marriage.

I agree. I think the press does wish to destroy the institution of marriage and make the church look bad.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit