Comments on: Simplified DOMA Repeal Cuts out Civil Unions

By: Sarrellec

Sarrellec — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:23:08 +0000

I agree that muddying the waters by including anything other than marriage does just that: muddy the waters.
Federal recognition of legal marriage is what matters.
State recognition is a red herring and alwayas has been. It’s a diversion meant to waste our time, money and energy.
State recognition does NOTHING regarding citizenship-by-marriage, federal income tax, and all of the other over a thousand rights/responsibilities enjoyed by fellow tax-paying breeders.
I applaude this gentleman!
Bravo!

By: Drewski

Drewski — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:54:16 +0000

This is overdue. Civil unions and domestic partnerships have never had the same legal standing as marriage. If DOMA repeal means that civil unions/DPs are not recognized at Federal level, that’s fine–one standard applies for all. Isn’t that what we wanted? It would also seem to mean that, without DOMA, your man-man or woman-woman marriage when you were a Mass. or Iowa resident will remain for Federal purposes if you move to Texas or Florida. Not sure how it would work if a gay couple from Texas got married in Iowa, then returned home–your state of residence doesn’t recognize your marriage, as opposed to moving from a state where it is recognized. That would be another lawsuit, and it seems like the resolution would be that Texas would have to accept an Iowa marriage. Texas would reserve the right to say no, but they’d still have to recognize one performed elsewhere in this scenario.

By: gayactivist101

gayactivist101 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:29:39 +0000

We’re here, were queer, I want DOMA repealed now!!!!!

DOMA and DADT laws/policies are the most rediculious laws ever passed in Congress history, back in the 1990s!!!!

By: LostMetroid88

LostMetroid88 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:41:40 +0000

How would this work in states with no marriage equality? Let’s say I get a marriage license in New Hampshire, but move to Wisconsin. I could file my federal taxes as joint, but the state level as single? (I live in a state with no state taxes – NV) Would this make some complications in those states? If it does, I fully support this.

By: Trace

Trace — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:05:06 +0000

Equality is just so complicated.

By: Kari

Kari — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:53:07 +0000

I agree with his assessment that it complicates things to resolve the situation with civil unions in the bill.

…But I don’t know if I agree that it complicates it so much that it shouldn’t be addressed now.

On the other hand, if the bill were to pass without any provision to address civil unions and domestic partnerships, the states performing those will have an incentive to move to full equality.

Why? Because now the federal benefits are available, but if they want their residents to be fully equal they have to move to same-sex marriage rather than have their own separate legal construction for gay people.

In short, the politicians wouldn’t be able to say “Well, you’ll be equal eventually, but it’s up to Congress” anymore. They, the state legislators, can establish full equality in their states. And that will increase pressure on them to act.