You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #10: It's not the word, it is the legal rights associated with the word [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's not the word, it is the legal rights associated with the word
Marriage is a state institution, as are civil unions. Marriage is granted reciprocity by every state, the federal government, and every other country in the world. Civil unions are granted none.

If you're married in one state, and move to another, you don't have to get remarried in order to be married in the new state for tax purposes, inheritance purposes, or any of the other hundreds of rights that come with being married. Ditto for federal and international rights. That reciprocity has been developed through years of legal struggle and hundreds of legal cases which, as a patchwork, force reciprocity even when the states do not necessarily want to grant it. Virginia v. Loving (interracial marriage) was one such case in which the interracial marriage was legal in the state which created it, but not in the home state of the couple. There have been similar states involving relationship between the husband and wife, age of the parties, common law marriages recognized in one state but not another.

Developing rights beyond the state in which the rights were created for a new institution (civil unions) which is different from the existing one would need to be developed through years of legal struggle while the individuals involved are still denied rights outside of the state which authorized the civil union. (This is a principle of legal interpretation - if two things are different, they were intended to be different for a reason and the interpretation of the laws is presumed to seek and support the differences).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC