Proponents of segregation claimed that "Separate but Equal" treatment with respect to people's rights and benefits was sufficient under the U.S. Constitution. Some still do. But separate treatment turned out never to be equal treatment.
"The 'Separate but Equal' doctrine was eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)
Proponents of "civil union" as an alternative to full marriage rights claim that permitting civil union would result in equal rights being available to those who are now denied access to marriage rights. 'Separate but Equal' rights, it should be noted.
Proponents of separate but equal access to marriage rights are as wrong now as proponents of racial segregation were in 1954.
Out with the old and the lovely.
In with the new and the ugly.
I just couldn't figure out what your post meant. If ironic, why the irony?