Skip to main content

View Diary: Civil Unions and Marriage: the Difference (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This puzzle is part of the reason why Sec.2 of (4+ / 0-)

    DOMA is almost as evil as section 3.  Section 2 says no state is obligated to honor the acts of another as to the kind of rights under discussion here. It is, I am advised by those here, one of the matters in the current round of Federal appeals as to MASS, the Coakley case IIRC.  

    IMO, the point of the provision was to make sure that no matter what other states did, the Feds would be required to support the notion that each individual state would have the right to enforce its preferred  bigotries, not yet emobodied in the Federal civil rights acts, while they think of public policy issues that might protect them from that as well, such as the rights of women.

    Of course TX has messed that up, where the State AG is tryinig to intervene to prevent divorces in TX of ssm unions made elsewhere, because you cannot in TX have a divorce without recognizing the marriage intended to be put asunder.  Even the NYT made a bigamy joke about that one, but it is no joke.

    VA tried that when a couple with a child married in a marriage state,, broke up and one ran with the child to VA, which would not recognize any of the rights of the other as to the child.

    My state, WA, did an 'everything but the name' statute and had to jam that past judges of our Supreme Court with a statute and then with a referendum to get that far, and then discovered that they STILL needed a provision that said if a couple were treated as 'married' in their home state, they would also be so treated in WA.  WA did that.  I think but am not sure that WYO did, with those two small government Rs and their like and the fella who pointed out the damage to the tourist trade if ssm people had accidents in that state.  So far the world has not yet come to an end in our state, and I am hopeful that with a bit of time, the legislature will get that last but so important to many step.

    The bottom line is the matter of full faith and credit, which is a constitutional requirement on the states in most circumstances, and a lust for bizarre constitutional litigation which the opponents of ssm hope the other side cannot afford to prosecute are what this is about.

    There is a decent possibility although the only place I know of that it was recently tried was as to the immigration pile of statutes in AZ, that the right of citizens to travel from state to state may be a possible ground to sort this one out.

    In the meantime, ssm travelers might well do the research and find fascinating things to visit in places which do recognize their equal rights, and forget whatever limited charms may exist in states that do not.

    •  Good points, but a nitpick (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chun Yang, musing85, Cassandra Waites

      the other state in question in the VA situation was VT, and it was a civil union, not a marriage.

      "The first rule of pillow fight club is do not talk about pillow fight club." --Keith Olbermann

      by Julie Waters on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:53:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Section 2 of DOMA was unnecessary and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob, Julie Waters, Cassandra Waites

      accomplishes nothing, since there's already a public policy exception to Full Faith and Credit.   No state has ever been required under FF&C to recognize a marriage which substantively violated its own policies (ie, anti-miscegenation laws).

    •  as a texan, i must say that i wish... (0+ / 0-)

      greg abbott would worry about the issue of divorce amongst those who are able to legally marry in our state. until my marriage in d.c. is legal in my home state, where i reside, he can kiss my native texan behind.

      oh, and unlike so many of our heterosexual counterparts, i can say with a high level of confidence that mine is not a marriage he will ever have to worry about when it comes to divorce...we waited 17 years to get married. just to be sure, ya' know?

      "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

      by liberaldemdave on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:13:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site