The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
Maryland could learn a lot from this tale.
4 comments:
It seems very similar to the California decision in that respect, actually; the legislature passed a "less than marriage" measure that gave pretty much all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples.
I'm curious as to how law students see the gay marriage controversy. I can tell you back in the day (here I'm doing my old Walter Brennan--No, he wasn't the Supreme Court Justice, Christ almighty--wheezey whistle), I was the one nerd-o loser in Con Law, during discussions on the 'full faith and credit' clause. Some joker would ask what the heck difference it made to any other state if a couple divorced for 'no reason' (ie no fault) in Nevada, and decided to re-marry someone else: If YOU don't want to get a no fault divorce, then don't get one. Everyone would nod--and I'd try to explain a principle that I didn't agree with at all: the state's interest in preserving marriages ie making people live together who hated each other.
Now, every state in the union (more or less) allows the Nevada-style divorces.
If even ONE state allows gay marriage, I don't see how bans in any other state can interfere with that marriage. The 'full faith and credit clause' is were the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) hangs, that was necessary to end the old parental kidnapping & races to the courthouse gambit.
Can you really argue that some marriages are valid in some states, but not in others? Some child custody or support orders are enforceable only in some states? Best of British luck with THAT one.
If I were working with gay & lesbian organizations, I'd find couples to marry in California and Connecticut, adopt kids, divorce, and then have the custodial parent move to another state.
If the non-custodial parent stays in California (or Connecticut), then California law still controls enforcement of the decree under UCCJEA. That means that the parties could agree on venue in another state. Oregon law (and Oregon courts) do not recognize same sex marriages, and technically, an Oregon Court interpreting a California Divorce decree is only enforcing California law----but that's gotta get a Judge pretty sweaty under that black dress.................
And all much ado over nothing. Fifty years from now, Con law classes will be teaching full faith and credit, and some joker will say 'What the heck is the state interest to keep gays and lesbians from marrying? Does anyone really think they're going to accidentally marry someone the wrong sex? I mean, after the wedding and all the rice is thrown and the little brothers all get drunk and puke at the reception, the couple gets to the hotel--and one guy says 'What the hell--You're a DUDE?' and the other guy says 'What? You mean YOU'RE a dude? OH NO! And now it's TOO LATE! Not even an annulment can save us, because our dream of a nice church wedding is shattered forever!"
I pray to the cowboy buddha that the nerd-o just laughs with everyone else, and doesn't try to explain the 'sanctity' of an institution where over half end in less than five years........
Bad Craziness.
Bill Abendroth
David -
You seem to have caught a Bill from me.
My apologies -- and you may want to warn others with whom you've had unprotected internet contact.
-E.
Esquiver--
You think you are funny---but you're not.
I remain:
Immune from efforts to prophylacticize.
Bill Abendroth
Post a Comment