Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am not up on this. VT didn't specifically pass a law permitting same-sex unions? It came about because a court interpreted some part of their constitution or some other state law not directly addressing the issue as requiring that such unions be recognized? I was making the argument that the amendment isn't intended to restrict the ability of a state legislature to pass a law permitting marriage-type unions.
|
Right. Basically teh same thing as Mass., except it allowed civil unions, whereas Mass. said that civil unions, even with the same rights, were different than marriage because they weren't called marriage. So the name there was of critical importance (but see teh dissent)
And, Ty, I don't see the first sentence barring what mass did. I see it as raising the principle of DOMA to constitutional level. Have I missed some S. Ct. ruling on the 11th amendment that suggests that "United States" means "United States and its constituent states"
As for irrelevance, I wasn't talking about what happens if it passes (which I think it won't), I was talking about the precise meaning of it. But really right now you're talking only about people in Vermont. Mass. hasn't started issuing licenses, and Cal.'s (well, SF's) licenses are void unless upheld, which they haven't been. It's only in vermont that gay couples have actually been allowed to enter into civil unions free from any doubts under state law.
