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

[tko_ak]

Generally, heterosexual couples cannot enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships because they can get married. I don't really see what it harms to open those up for anyone, but it isn't usually how the law is written.

[nikolche]

Depends on the state. In California opposite sex senior citizens can register a domestic partnership (if they're not married, obviously). It's because seniors who are collecting social security and other benefits left by a deceased spouse generally lose those benefits if they remarry. This way little old ladies don't lose their entire means of income, but also retain the ability to visit their new partner in the hospital.

[kathygnome]

Civil Unions are complicated by the fact that some civil unions are a form of "separate but equal" marriage. But in other states, if my memory serves me, they are clearly meant to be half a loaf and strictly limited on what benefits they bring.

I don't think states are cross-recognizing civil unions either?

[tko_ak]

I don't know about civil unions, but I know some states recognize other states gay marriages even if they don't have marriage equality themselves (like New York and D.C.). I would assume California recognizes civil unions elsewhere, but I'm not positive. I know there's a push to recognizes gay marriages from outside the state.

[nikolche]

Actually, most states don't. When you move you have to re-register your domestic partnership/civil union in the new state. It's kind of ridiculous and one of the reasons domestic partnerships/civil unions aren't effective.

[fabfemmeboy]

They aren't necessarily meant to be "half a loaf," and some states are required to have every single benefit extended to straight couples (at least at the state level). They're certainly not equal to marriage, but in some states - NJ and CA, in particular - they at least come with all the tangible benefits.

[nikolche]

I've always been torn on this issue. While civil unions could be a good thing if they are required to have all the same rights as marriage, I worry that if we settle for that we'll stay with it forever. Some people are fine with that, particularly since at that point it really would just be a name. I'm not sure I am though. There's a certain social connotation that goes with the word "marriage", civil unions don't have that.

At the same time, it seems wrong to recognise one set of same sex commitments and not another. My marriage isn't any more or less valid than a domestic partnership, why should I get more benefits? It just creates another three tier system like we already have in California.

[taraxoxo]

Marriages and civil unions/domestic partnerships should be equal. Our movement shouldn't make the latter not equal and rejoice in it - maybe we can say they are 'not equivalent', but we shouldn't cheer moves to make them legally not equal.

[fabfemmeboy]

Of course a repeal of DOMA doesn't extend federal marriage benefits to non-marriage unions. Extending benefits to civil unions/domestic partnerships/all the other not-quite-marriages requires an entirely separate, additional legislative scheme that is a) a pain in the ass to try to write and b) less likely to pass because it runs into constitutional issues. You can't do this kind of thing piecemeal - it either needs to be like the UK, where everyone gets a civil partnership from the government and 'marriage' is a separate religious sacrament, or it has to all be based on who is considered legally married by their state.

[randomguy3]

That's not quite how it works in the UK. Civil partnerships are for same-sex pairings only. If a man and a woman marry at a registry office, it's still marriage. But the rights of both are equal in law (I'm not sure how the law is written - it may just say that civil partnerships have all the benefits and obligations of marriage). The only differences are (a) the name and (b) the act that seals the union (for marriage, it's the words they speak, whereas for civil partnerships it's the signing of the document).

[tko_ak]

I'm not arguing whether it would be easy or hard. But we both know enough about how laws are made to know that they wouldn't have to have a separate bill to recognize civil unions. I don't have a solid opinion on whether the federal government should or not, but there's no reason they couldn't amend the bill to include civil unions (which I think was in the original repeal legislation).

[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