Civil Unions in ILFollow

Well it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully now that they can ride the bus, they'll be able to move up to the front in a decade or so.

Nexa

Good for Illinois.

As for getting hitched to Eldy, well how do I put this nicely? Have you ever hooked up with a swamp donkey, hated yourself for it, but when its 2am and you need to get laid you call her up. And if your friends ever asked if you were sleeping with her you would deny it, even if she was right there.

Elderon's (not) my swamp donkey.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 2:28pm by bodhisattva

Err, I guess the question in the OP wasn't straight-forward enough. How long do you think it will be before red states (read: the Bible Belt) adopts this type of legislation? Do you think that the legalization of same-sex unions is a growing trend, or are these five (or six) states simply outliers?

It is a growing trend. 1 state 7 years ago, 7 states now. Also Mass where it gay marriage is legal. 26 countries that have implemented it in one form or another.

The main hurdle is DOMA, which means the federal govt doesnt have to recognize them and neither do other states.

That's got to be the sweetest thing any *** has ever said to me. If I ever decide to swing that way, I'll be sure to call you up.

Same-sex legislation has already made it to Arkansas in the form of a new bill to prevent same-sex couples from fostering or adopting children.

That's it. Thanks!

You're sort of right, but usually the FFC Clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize things like marriages, adoptions, divorces, contracts, etc. of the state from which they originated. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically allows states to supercede the FFC Clause. Furthermore, many states have passed their own DOMAs to fit in to the Federal Statute.



That's exactly right and even if they did not have such legislation, the federal DOMA would still allow them side-step the FFC Clause.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 3:46pm by Addikeys

The Public Policy exception to FFC applies even in the context of marriage. It's the reason other states were never required to recognize polygamy and why some states were allowed to prosecute miscegenation even if the interracial couple had been married in a state allowing such unions. This is why I was pointing out that relying on FFC might not accomplish Jophiel's vision of the future.

As for DOMA, I do not recall the Supreme Court ever acting on any of the legal challenges to the statute. But even if DOMA is ultimately found to be constitutionally infirm, FFC will not necessarily require the Bible Belt to recognize same-sex unions formed in other states.

The fact that divergent mores result in a patchwork of policies that vary from state to state will not necessarily lead to eventual unanimity. I do not foresee a Roe v. Wade type of decision that will subjugate the states' laws to a uniform federal standard rooted in the Constitution ... at least not anytime soon. Absent amending the Constitution, it is difficult to envision a legislative solution since marriage remains within the province of the states' authority.

The good news in all this is that my brethren of the Bar who practice family law can look forward to "land office business" over the next several years as same-sex couples struggle to decipher exactly what rights they can take with them to another state. Anything that pads lawyers' pockets is a good thing.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 3:05pm by Thoronmir

Interesting. I hope I get to one day say "Nyeah, nyeah you were wrong" but interesting nonetheless.

Meh. I've seen enough of Thorn's stuff to give him the benefit of the doubt and more innate credibility than 98% of the people around here.

I'm fuzzy on how to even parse that as a sentence.

Smash implied that I'm dumb and now I'm sad