On the radio yesterday I heard that NYC (though not the whole state) will recognize gay unions and marriages from other states and countries. While gay marriage is still outlawed, they will both be treated as civil unions. (At least, this is how I remember it being reported, correct anything I missed.)
So, what are the net differences of the two? I assume some but not all privileges of marriage are now available, if so, which ones are and which aren’t?
Thanks
This is a legally evolving concept, and as such not clearly defined. In this specific case, as NY state doesn’t allow gay marriages, all NYC can do is recognize “civil unions”. How NYC recognizes civil unions depends on how the politicians choose to define “civil union”.
There really isn’t an answer to this. I started a GD thread on this subject last year, but it didn’t get very far. There are, by some measures, something on the order of 2,000 “incidences” of marriage (ie, 2,000 legal items), so a civil union could conceivably give same sex (or opposite sex) partners a few of those incidences or most of them-- 10, 100, 500…
One reason why a lot of folks argue for allowing same-sex-marriage is precisely to avoid having civil unions confer some but not all of the incidences of marriage that John Mace mentioned. I suppose that that’s probably the same reason that some folks argue for civil unions, too.
In other words, the major difference between the two is that marriage has an established legal and common-speech meaning; civil union does not.
Daniel
It’s a very good question exactly what this will mean. I raised the question a while ago, and got the answer in the affirmative, that the state’s Attorney General had issued an advisory opinion that, although New York does not itself authorize and license marriages of gay couples, it would recognize gay marriages and civil unions in the two states (now perhaps three) that do, plus presumably those of Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Under Vermont law a civil union is entitled to be treated exactly as if it were a marriage, as far as rights under the law are concerned. It would be my assumption that how NYC treats a Vermont marriage would be how it treats a Vermont civil union.
NYC has extensive but delimited home rule authority under New York’s state constitution; it may not contravene “general” state law, making legal what the state has decreed illegal or reading civil law in a different way than the state has affirmatively set forth as proper; but within those bounds it is free to deal with things as it chooses, as regards its own affairs. For example, if under city housing law married couples are entitled to such-and-such privilege in renting, so would gay married and civilly-unioned couples. If the city or its vendors is required to provide group insurance for spouses and children, that would be available to gay spouses and civil-union-partners.
Specifics will depend on what NYC is legally entitled to do without contravening general state law and what it chooses to do. I suspect it will be in general evenhanded treatment, though.
Thanks for the responses so far. Perhaps this would be better suited to GD or IMHO. If so, report this and maybe it’ll be moved.
Thanks again
I would think the greatest difference would be federal recognition. The IRS won’t recognize them for tax purposes, the INS won’t recognize them for immigration purposes, etc.
I’m pretty sure it is three now: marriage in MA, and civil unions in VT and CA (starting in Jan of this year). In CA, they are called domestic partnerships, so if that’s significantly different than a civil union, maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in.
I would also expect that the incidences of marriages vary somewhat from state to state, so one might expect civil unions to vary at least as much.
I’m not prepared to defend this, but it was my understanding that domestic partnership laws gave legal recognition to privately-contracted unions, as opposed to civil unions being legally contracted pseudo-marriages. By analogy, state recognition of “common-law marriage” is equivalent to recognizing domestic partnerships; authorizing civil marriages would be the equivalent to civil unions. But I may be completely wrong in that understanding; perhaps someone with a knowledge of the California law and court decision might be able to clarify.
(By the way, let me take this opportunity to thank you, John, for your thoughtful response in the Ann Coulter Pit thread; the first draft of my last post there acknowledged and complimented you on that, but I apparently inadvertently deleted that sentence in rewrite.)
Could be. I live in CA, and that law is always referred to by my local newspaper here as our “civil unions” law. I was actually surprised when I googled it to find that it’s really a D.P. law. So, maybe my thinking is shaped by that.
Thanks.
Civil unions are like being almost married.
But you aren’t.
You may get state benefits but no federal benefits. Try working that out when you do taxes.
It’s a cop out.
I’ve always assumed the difference is that marriage is an emotional word that makes conservatives bristle when they hear it applied to same-sex marriage while civil union is legally the same thing without the kneejerking.
I assume it’s true that all states have laws that recognize the legality of marriages performed in other jurisdictions (some have language about recognition unless something in a different jurisdiction’s marriage law violates the state’s marriage laws).
States don’t generally speaking, have laws that require them to recognize other states’ “civil unions.”
Yeah, except that calling a gay marriage a “civil union” makes us liberals bristle.
Reeder, a state can allow gays to marry (using that terminology), but that doesn’t give the married couple any marriage rights at the federal level. Or at least, it won’t without litigation.
–Cliffy