WSJ: Why Just One Wedding Isn't Enough For Some Gay Couples

The surprisingly good article continues at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122531715603381673.html

Our lawyer advised us to do this because of the piecemeal recognition of our union in the US. Some (few) states recognize the marriage, a few more recognize the DP...many more recognize neither.

This is why I think this will hit the USSC at some point...probably sooner rather than later.

generally - although there may be a question about Vermont DPs, which the state says are equivalent to marriage. If I had a Vermont DP, I would be a bit more cautious.

As to out of state recognition - my guess is that domestic partnerships vary so much from state to state (or locality within state) that recognition across state borders is less likely than recognition of marriages across state or country borders.

But you're absolutely right about the USSC - although I hope it waits long enough for there to be some change in the composition of the court. Right now, I do not think the court would feel bound by Virginia v. Loving, and we would be stuck with bad case law. Overturning bad law is much harder than nudging the law along - even if you're dealing with the same court (that's one of the reasons Roe v. Wade is still around - even the crew of justices we have now is reluctant to completely overturn a prior case).

Personally, we're not brining our case for a while - even though our marriage date was chosen 3+ years ago specifically to best posture it for a court challenge. (We were married thousands of miles away from home the day before the Ohio Marriage Discrimination Amendment took effect, on the theory that legally it is harder to take existing rights away than it is to deny the acquisition of new ones.)

is not to get legally married multiple times.

In order to be legally married anywhere of which I am aware, each individual in the couple must be legally single. I am legally married (in Canada). If I went to California, in order to be married there, I would need to represent that I am not already legally married (and may have to prove it). Anyone who represents that their Canadian marriage (or Californian, or Massachussets, etc.) does not exist weakens the case that will eventually need to be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court that an out of state or out of country marriage should be recognized beyond the borders of the state or country - just like a marriage between a man and a woman already is. If even we don't treat our marriages as legally binding beyond the state or country border and identical to straight marriages, why on earth would we expect the court to treat them that way?

(Domestic partnerships, sacramental ceremonies, and civil unions can probably be performed as many times as the couple wants without legal risk because none of them have any recognition beyond the state lines - or in some cases within them - but you should check with a local attorney in the state in which you plan to create the second or additional legal less-than-marriage type relationship).

We currently celebrate 3 anniversaries - our real marriage (27+ years ago), the date our faith community took our marriage under its care (14+ years ago), and our legal marriage (3+ years ago). Unless our state approves some sort of civil union or domestic partnership that does not conflict with (eventual) recognition of our legal marriage which gives us benefits within the state, there will be no more.

But also consider that the San Francisco and Multnomah County marriages were latter invalidated by the Supreme Courts of California and Oregon, respectively, and so do not represent any legal impediment. Canadian marriages, you are correct.

I'd have to read the cases, but if the marriages were either rendered void from the beginning or from the date of a subsequent court decision, you are correct. (I am assuming the courts did that - but if I had one of those marriages I would definitely consult a local attorney before marrying a second time.)

...that they can cut down on same-sex marriage by...legalizing same-sex marriage! B-)