When people are discussing gay civil unions, they often use the expression “A civil union has many of the same rights and privileges as a marriage.”
Without debating merits or validity, can someone inform me about what R&P’s a civil union does convey, and more importantly what R&P’s it does not convey which a marriage would?
As Vermont is currently the only US state that allows civil unions, I shall quote from their helpdul Vermont Civil Union FAQ:
More information there about taxes, insurance, and so on. Worth a read.
The laws of each state grant certain privileges, vis-à-vis each other and in terms of state law, to the members of a marriage regarded as valid by that state. The lists vary slightly but are substantively equal.
For example, the spouse automatically becomes the next-of-kin, with the rights and powers of that relationship, under state law. Ordinarily, a spouse cannot be disinherited in a will – each state has a slightly different “take” on how that applies. The lists compiled by various groups of marital rights are instructive reading.
But one thing that a true marriage has which a civil union does not is portability and, with it, Federal sanction. A couple united under a Vermont civil union may not, for example, file a joint Federal income tax return. In the absence of very specific exceptions, a couple married in one state may expect to have their marriage recognized if they should move to another state, without the necessity of proving out the legality of their marriage. States will ordinarily recognize the validity of a marriage in another state in the settling of estates as regards property actually or constructively located in that state. None of these provisions applies to civil unions.
Oddly, there has been a recent case wherein a civilly united couple was granted a divorce in Iowa. The judge signed the divorce papers without checking the sex of the parties involved (something he says he does routinely). When it was called to his attention that the parties were both female, he stayed his decision but ultimately decided to let the divorce stand. A number of Iowa lawmakers have intervened and appealed the case to the Iowa supreme court, arguing that since the state does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, the court’s granting a divorce is illegal under the state’s “defense of marriage” law and constitutes a “back door” recognition of SSM.
Similar cases have come up in Texas (there the state attorney general intervened and the original judge voided a divorce he granted to a male couple) and IIRC Conneticutt (the judge ruled that since CT law did not recognize civil unions the parties had no standing to access the CT court to dissolve the union).
IIRC Vermont gears its state income tax rates for married couples to the amount the couple pays under federal tax law. I don’t know how (or if) Vermont has taken any action to remedy the differential tax rates on married vs civilly united couples.
I would assume that any Federal benefits that pertain to marriage would not pertain to civil union… social security, Medicare, income tax, etc.
Speaking of portibility, didn’t Clinton sign a bill, the Defense of Marriage Act (not to be political, but weird for a dem, isn’t it?) (“DOMA”) (sorry, no cite, but it was like 1996) that same-sex marriages no longer adhered to the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution? I wonder how these recent issues relate to the DOMA. I would look it up, but I’m surprisingly busy this time of year.
Clinton did indeed sign that (deleted out of deference to forum rules) legislation. It defines “marriage” and “spouse” on the federal level to include only male-female couples and it provides that no state is required to give effect to or recognize same-sex marriages performed in any jurisdiction. There is debate over whether FF&C allows the federal government to authorize states to ignore SSM performed in other states. To my knowledge, no one has challenged either the federal DOMA or a state-level DOMA as it would pertain to a Vermont civil union. No other state offeres civil unions Vermont-style (California is the closest but that doesn’t take effect until 1/1/2005 and is also being challenged in court) so there is currently no way to challenge the failure of one state with CU to recognize the CU of another state.
What I will find interesting is if/when couples in MA start marrying, how will the state handle recognition of Vermont civil unions? Will it treat them like out-of-state marriages? Fail to recognize them? And what of couples from provinces or countries with legalized SSM? Will MA become the honeymoon destination for our neighbors to the North?
Seeing as you didn’t specify where, over here “registered partnership” differs from marriage when it comes to joint custody of children, or the right to artificial insemination.
Thank you for the info. I’ll summarize what I understand:
It seems like there are two issues here in the US:
In the case of Vermont, there do not seem to be any significant ommissions.