A step forward in Hawaii

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not advocating any lame attempt at "separate but equal," I'm merely reporting it.

I didn't for a moment think you were - I'm simply querying on what grounds have the states decided that Article 4 doesn't apply?

[Mikey]

I'm not advocating any lame attempt at "separate but equal," I'm merely reporting it.

I didn't for a moment think you were - I'm simply querying on what grounds the states have decided that Article 4 doesn't apply.

The whole idea of the "civil union," as opposed to marriage, is as far as I can tell an artificial loophole formed to circumvent that very language.

[Reliant121]

"A marriage in practical effect is not a marriage in name" or some other crap like that?

[Mikey]

"A marriage in practical effect is not a marriage in name" or some other crap like that?

More like, "We want to keep our hate and bias."

[BigJKU316]

Pfft. Marriage, civil union, whatever. It is still, I presume, a matter of public record, and therefore counts.

It's how my mother, a Justice of the Peace, feels about it. She's got no problem doing same-sex marriages.

My point, however, is specifically legalistic - while the specific benefits accrued through civil partnerships and marriages may be different, they're both "public acts, records, or judicial proceedings", and therefore whether or not other states want to recognise them or not is irrelevant. Hence my querying Mikey's statement that they sometimes aren't.

The union itself must be recognized by other states. There is probably more legal wrangling involved over just what benefits a civil union confers vs a marriage depending on how state laws are written but the legal status would be valid everywhere.

[Mikey]

Thanks, I didn't even fully understand how that loophole works. In other words, any state must recognize another state's civil union - the new state in question just doesn't have to give the union any legal authority to do anything?

[BigJKU316]

Thanks, I didn't even fully understand how that loophole works. In other words, any state must recognize another state's civil union - the new state in question just doesn't have to give the union any legal authority to do anything?

That would be up to the courts I would guess. I am not an expert on this specific subject and I think the courts would interpret any disputes of just what rights a union entitled you to in each state, I just know that the union or marriage must be recognized as valid by other states.