Quote:
Originally Posted by ocinteeni
I can't say this with certainty but I beleive civil unions can not cross state lines, meaning if a gay couple were to get a civil union in california if they go to another state which doesn't have civil unions they would not be guaranteed the same rights. The only way to get the full rights everywhere is to be married which I believe is protected on a federal level.
|
Actually, you have the right idea -- but reversed. Generally speaking, a "marriage" is viewed as a religious bonding, but a "marriage" does NOT necessarily have to be respected or honored by a state. For example (as we saw in the news a while back), you could have a group of people who are part of a wacky religious compound cult...they feel they are a "legitimate" religion since in America they have every right to practice whatever they want (hey, you can worship a tiki doll on your shelf and it's technically your own religion)...
...And yet that same cult could say they believe 50-year old guys should marry 16-year old girls to have kids and keep the cult clan going. So, in an instance like that, the cult can go ahead and perform their own "religious" ceremony in their own "church" -- and thus in their eyes they see it as a valid "marriage." However, the BIG question is: did the state recognize that church as a valid religious entity to begin with? Also, laws vary from state to state regarding the age of consent and that too could negate the marriage. Not to mention, once you crossed state lines with your underage teenage cult bride, not only would the marriage NOT be recognized, but given the age of the girl the police might arrest you.
On the other hand...a civil union, as defined by law, is performed by a state-recognized and state-sanctioned appointee. Thus, in the eyes of the government, it is fully legal, binding, and transferable across state lines. Basically, as someone noted on a legal web site:
States are free to pass whatever laws they want to enforce upon their own state as long as it is Constitutional and not in violation of pre-existing Federal law. However, it has always been the law that IF a state has no law regarding a particular activity (for example gay marriage) then it will legally recognize the legitimacy of the other state's law.
Long story short, Article V1 of the United States Constitution -- which is commonly known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" -- addresses the fact that states within the United States have to respect
"the public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. In other words, a civil union -- since it was performed by an appointed state or municipal official -- would actually be
more legally recognized across state lines than a marriage.
In fact, here's another example of how wacky and tangled this gets. In Rhode Island, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state's family court had an all-new problem. They lacked the authority to grant a divorce for same-sex couples. Why? Because Rhode Island doesn't recognize same-sex marriages to begin with. As a result, that left a same-sex couple seeking a divorce without any options UNLESS unless they actually packed their bags and moved back to neighboring Massachusetts where they got married to begin with.
To be honest, perhaps it seems as if I misspoke before, so let me clarify something. The Gay community wants to use the word "marriage" not just for social acceptance, but also for some very real legal reasons. That's because much like Rhode Island realized it had a funky loophole on its hands and suddenly found themselves saying: "Huh, what do you know? We never thought about that!" you have the same thing happening with all sorts of other issues, across the board and state to state. For example, in one of the most commonly cited things, you could be a same-sex couple that is united in a civil union, but then you get a new job and suddenly discover that your health insurance has forms that specifically use the word "marriage" -- which means that now you're in a legal bind where the heath provider
won't give your significant other coverage because they don't technically view them as a legal "spouse." It's things like that...the way that we define certain terms on the ledgers...that has made this such a contentious issue.
Also, there's a whole other tangent we haven't even gotten into, where the Gay community wants same-sex marriage defined as a civil rights issue because then by law they could force any church where they dreamed of exchanging their vows into letting them use that property, otherwise they could sue for a violation of civil rights. So, there's that as well. That goes back to something I mentioned in my other post, where a section of the Gay community voted FOR Prop 8 because they felt they were actually protecting the rights of their own local parishes.
And again, as a term, "marriage" can be a wacky thing. For example, in Texas if you live with someone and (1) literally just SAY that you're married (I mean simply turn to one another and say "Yep, we're married!") and then (2) go out amongst your friends and simply SAY "Yep! She's my husband/wife!" and then finally (3) file a joint tax return, then congratulations -- without ever going through a church ceremony OR going to town hall for a civil union, you're now married. You can now claim to be "common law spouses" and ask the state to mail you a marriage certificate.
So, the whole thing is a legal web all it's own, and I didn't mean to make light of what the Gay community is fighting for in my other post, ocinteeni. To that end you're right and I'm sorry if it seemed that I misspoke. This isn't ONLY about social recognition. The whole debate of marriage, same-sex marriage, and civil unions clearly has a crap load of legal arguments that still need to be ironed out and settled...