DOMA repeal/federal recognition doesn't cover civil unions

[tko_ak]

The latest version of legislation repealing the Defense of Marriage Act would grant federal recognition to same-sex marriages, but not civil unions or domestic partnershipsI can see both sides. On one hand, civil unions are more politically palatable and thus more likely to be approved, at least as an intermediary step. To not include them hurts

Comments

[fabfemmeboy]

It might not have to be a separate bill entirely, but it would take a considerable chunk of whatever bill it was part of if done the hard way. I doubt they would go through and pass a simple "A civil union, as defined by any state, is entitled to all benefits for marriage on the federal leve" bill. They would have to define which unions qualify, because some states have civil unions that encompass all of, like, three rights (Yes, Maryland, I'm looking at you!) Does that count as equally as, say, New Jersey or California, which are required to provide all rights of marriage at a state level? How do we deal with the transferability? Right now, if you're married in Iowa and you move to Massachusetts, you're still married when you step off the plane in Boston without filing so much as a single sheet of paper. Civil unions, we have seen, are not similarly transferable. Would Congress address that to keep some continuity? If it's being defined as a marriage equivalent in the eyes of the federal government, shouldn't it fit under the same rules of the Full Faith and Credit Clause: It's transferable unless recognition would grossly violate the public policy of the second state? If I have a civil union in DC, which has a lot of rights, and I move quite literally across the street into Maryland, where civil unions exist but have few rights, then currently those extra rights I'd have in DC just kind of...vanish. If the federal government is giving benefits on the basis of having a civil union, I'd still be entitled to them...or would I? Is the public policy of Maryland that gay partners are recognized, or is it that they're entitled to a few paltry rights dealing with inheritance of property and nothing more?

The main problem with civil unions is - and always has been - two-fold: a lack of equality, and a lack of reciprocity. Congress could add "and civil unions" to a bill and be done with it, but it would create an extra 200 lawsuits. To say nothing of all the political implications.