|
The concept is simple. If we were starting a brand new world with a clean slate it would probably be a fantastic solution. The reality of superimposing this new legal entity on a longstanding worldwide reciprocal recognition of marriage is considerably more complicated. What do you do with:
People already married - do they need to get an additional civil union?
States that don't adopt this scheme (marriage is a state by state proposition)? Is a civil union in a state adopting this scheme entitled to recognition in a state that only sanctions marriage? Does the relationship change its name in the second state, becoming a marriage? What about step-children and in-laws? Does the existence of the legal relationship depend on the residency of the couple? the residency of the relative? the relationship entity one or the other state recognizes?
What happens if the Federal government won't recognize anything but marriage (or only civil unions between mixed gender partners)? What about federal recognition of step/in-law relationships?
What if other countries won't recognize civil unions, or won't recognize marriages, particularly if some states still have marriages and others have adopted civil unions?
Would the US recognize foreign marriages as valid for immigration or other purposes, since they are not civil unions? What about individual state recognition of foreign marriages for purposes of rights/benefits granted only to those party to a state sanctioned civil union?
The current scheme, in virtually all states, recognizes marriage (as a civil concept) based on either civil creation (e.g., judge) or religious creation (marriage in the practice of the sponsoring religious entity, to the extent that the couple would have been eligible for a civilly created marriage.) Every marriage, to the extent recognized by any state, is generally recognized by every state and virtually every country.
Marriage, as recognized by the state, already encompasses marriages that various denominations would find offensive (for example, the second marriage for a Catholic whose first marriage has not been annulled.) There are also religious marriages not recognized by the state (e.g., Quaker interracial marriages decades ago before state recognition was granted).
State recognized marriage always has, and probably always will, encompassed both more and fewer than all of the participants that a religious entity might choose to marry. There is no reason that just because the overlap between civil and religious marriages will be slightly different that the name of the state entity should be changed. In addition, renaming the overriding state entity (which includes both religious marriages and secular unions) would create a legal mess that would take decades to straighten out. The interpretation of civil union, including the questions I raised above and a host of others, would have to work their way through the courts of each individual state, our federal government, and every nation.
(These matters would, of course be argued by attorneys - hence the 100% employment for lawyers worldwide, and their fees paid for by the couples involved.)
If the name is left alone, the only question that will need to be determined on a state by state/country by country basis is whether there is a sufficient state public policy reason to support the various DOMA laws. If not, they will fall the way similar racist marriage laws fell in the past, and same gender marriages will be entitled to the same recognition as mixed gender - and we won't have to worry about individually creating for civil unions each of the the over 1000 rights/responsibilities that arise when a state recognizes a marriage.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
