# What are you getting out of all this, Bricker? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 23, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593 "2004-09-23T01:17:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/161 "2004-09-24T14:48:05Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > **lissener** compared Bricker to a Nazi Actually, he compared him to someone who supported Nazi rule. Not every supporter of the Nazi government was a Nazi, any more than everyone who supports George Bush is a Republican. If we’re going to call Godwin, let’s get it right, shall we? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/162 "2004-09-24T14:58:44Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > No, you’re missing my point. If Bricker says “it should be up to the states to decide” and Hilary says “it should be up to the states to decide”, the difference is not that Bricker means it and Hilary doesn’t. The difference is that what Bricker really says is “it should be up to the states to decide, but as for me, I do not personally consider a union between two people of the same sex to be a marriage”. The states-deciding part is only a sideshow. At least, that’s my analysis. For some reason you decided to SKIP my other Hillary link. [http://www.nypost.com/gossip/19209.htm](http://www.nypost.com/gossip/19209.htm) > [@](#): > > Clinton maintains that she is against same-sex marriage on ‘religious, moral and traditional grounds.’ She maintains that marriage is between only a man and a woman," fumes one gay rabble-rouser. “She also repeatedly says to whoever asks that she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act had she been in Congress back then.” (FWIW…there are other links besides the Post Gossip page that cite Hillary for this…the Post was just the first I found). So Hillary “maintains a marriage is between only a man and a woman” based on moral, traditional and religious grounds. It’s NOT just Hillary wishing for states to have the ability decide something (that she disagrees with). But again…she apparently gets a pass. > [@](#): > > Absolutely. Surely you can’t go into every pit thread in which one SDMBer flames another one, find a public figure who holds the views, or engages in the practices, for which the flamee was flamed, and point out the non-flaming of that public figure as if it’s somehow evidence of hyprocisy… Good gravy man…I’ve only said this at least three times now. This is NOT about a simple policy disagreement, I don’t expect folks to point out every politician who holds a point similar to a poster. I said it before and I’ll say it again. This is about the LEVEL of vitriol. If politican X holds a position that makes him/her a “bigot”, equvalent to a “racist”, someone who “discriminates”, someone equivalent to a Nazi…that sounds like no small deal to me. Does it sound pretty significant to you? > [@](#): > > Bricker posts on the SDMB, saying things that people disagree with, and gets flamed. Because he’s here. Because one can click “reply to” and respond to him, and he’ll answer back. That’s _far_ more satisfying than just railing about various famous people. Oh I get that…although I guess it’s truly amazing then, that other politicians of any stripe get pitted. Whats the “satisfaction”? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/163 "2004-09-24T15:02:05Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Actually, he compared him to someone who supported Nazi rule. Not every supporter of the Nazi government was a Nazi, any more than everyone who supports George Bush is a Republican. If we’re going to call Godwin, let’s get it right, shall we? Come on, **Otto**. Aren’t we splitting hairs here? On a message board, any message board, when someone makes any kind of reference to someone supporting Nazi Germany or Hitler, it’s a Godwin. Pure and simple. Then again, **lissener** invoking Godwin’s Law? In a pit thread about gay marriage? I’m shocked! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/164 "2004-09-24T15:02:19Z")
Would a federally recognized civil union really be a crappy substitute? It’s far more protection than gay couples have now, and might be a springboard to future full recognition of the unions, once people saw the sky hadn’t fallen. We won’t even get those civil unions, though, if their advocates don’t present a convincing case for them. And convincing people involves keeping emotions in check, and presenting cogent arguments instead of rage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/165 "2004-09-24T15:03:56Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Also, I really hope **Bricker** is going to respond both to my point on portability and to **GLWasteful** ’s point on adoption. > > Not that I think he won’t. Just a reminder. I’m afraid I missed GLWasteful’s point on adoption. Could you either recap or point me in the right direction to find it? Portability: I’ve said before that my proposed solution is civil unions, that by law confer all the rights, privileges, and incidents of marriage, enacted in every state, much the same as the present situation in which marriage laws are enacted in every state. Civil unions would thus be as portable as marriage within this country. Indeed, my REAL solution is to get the government out of the “marriage” business in its entirety; all “unions”, between same- and opposite-sex couples, should be subject to precisely the same level of recognition at law. We would then leave “marriage” to whatever any particular church, synagogue, temple, or coven wished to make of it. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/166 "2004-09-24T15:04:28Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Actually, he compared him to someone who supported Nazi rule. Not every supporter of the Nazi government was a Nazi, any more than everyone who supports George Bush is a Republican. If we’re going to call Godwin, let’s get it right, shall we? Sure…if you REALLY think that’s a meaningful distinction…then **Bricker** is somebody who, if alive in Germany during the 1930s, would have had no problem with the extermination of Jews, gypsies and gays (even though he may not have actually owned a National Socialist Party card). **Bricker** is somebody, who if alive during the 19th century, would have had no problem with slave owning and lynching. Yeah. Meaningful distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/167 "2004-09-24T15:08:47Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > **We** won’t even get those civil unions, though, if **their** advocates don’t present a convincing case for them. And convincing people involves keeping emotions in check, and presenting cogent arguments instead of rage. You’re getting confused about which side you’re on. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/168 "2004-09-24T15:16:34Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Would a federally recognized civil union really be a crappy substitute? It’s far more protection than gay couples have now, and might be a springboard to future full recognition of the unions, once people saw the sky hadn’t fallen. Yes, it is. Inequality is not equality. And I can just as easily contend that it could prove devastating to the cause of full equality, since unconcerned types will cease to care at all once gay people are seen to have something that’s “good enough”. As for cogent arguments, these have been presented _ad nauseam_, to the point where we’re left with appeals to procedure, appeals to tradition and appeals to patience. None of these address the fundamental concern of equality, which is why I’m interested to see if equality is something that you would support, ignoring how it is achieved. Do you? Fundamentally, do you believe that gay people are deserving of the same rights you and your wife enjoy, or not? ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/169 "2004-09-24T15:24:57Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Would a federally recognized civil union really be a crappy substitute? It’s far more protection than gay couples have now, and might be a springboard to future full recognition of the unions, once people saw the sky hadn’t fallen. > > We won’t even get those civil unions, though, if their advocates don’t present a convincing case for them. And convincing people involves keeping emotions in check, and presenting cogent arguments instead of rage. Then go ahead, **Mr. Moto**. I’m still waiting for your cogent argument. I posted above and in other threads exactly the reason why civil unions are not an acceptable substitute for true marriage in the case of people who are in love. You responded by saying “Oh yeah? Nice comeback!” Let’s see if I can say it again in a sweet enough way to make you actually respond to it. Civil unions are valid in some cases, but **not for people who are married**. If I love a man enough that I want to commit the rest of my life to him, start a family, and celebrate our love, then he is my **husband**. He is not my roommate. He is not my longtime companion. He is not my domestic partner. He and I are not civilly joined. For me to say anything else would be a **lie** and an **insult** to our love. And the love that he and I share should not have to be **proven** by us, when it is **assumed** of every heterosexual couple. If you want civil unions for people who need them, then fight for civil unions. Just don’t tell me that that’s what I want and that’s the most I can hope for. This is such a transparently stupid case of government and religious intrusion into personal relationships that is so completely unnecessary. Does that make my point? Or are you going to make us go through another round of “All you homos just simmer down now!” and “Fuck you you fucking fuck!” ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/170 "2004-09-24T15:31:24Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I don’t really care how you treat me. If I wanted my ego stroked I sure wouldn’t be hanging out here, one of the few conservatives on this message board. > > You might want to put that ego in check, though, and start making nice with the voters. You know, the electoral forum, where this issue always loses. > > As for it requiring work, I refer you to the davastating losses suffered by this issue in state after state. Sure, you’ll have to change lots and lots of minds. You really should be starting now. You know, **Mr. Moto** , it must be really difficult for you to be a conservative on this message board, since you’re clearly in a minority and we’ve seen time and time again that conservative threads suffer devastating losses. I have sympathy, I really do. Maybe you should just say that you’re a liberal to get people to like you. Then use that as a springboard to make your true opinions known. Sure, it’d be a lie, but it’s the best you can hope for. Wouldn’t it be easier? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/171 "2004-09-24T15:44:24Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Sure…if you REALLY think that’s a meaningful distinction…then > > **Bricker** is somebody who, if alive in Germany during the 1930s, would have had no problem with the extermination of Jews, gypsies and gays (even though he may not have actually owned a National Socialist Party card). > > **Bricker** is somebody, who if alive during the 19th century, would have had no problem with slave owning and lynching. > > Yeah. Meaningful distinction. As we have seen, **Bricker** fetishizes the legal process to an astonishing degree. If he were alive in 1850, I’m sure that he would be arguing strenuously againt the illegal theft of property committed by the black chattels running away from their rightful owners. Slavery was legal, therefore interfering with the property rights of slaveowners would be for him a question that could only be settled by the states. The Nuremberg laws made the resettlement of the Jews to the East legal. I’m sure **Bricker** might regret it, but the law is the law and therefore must be obeyed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/172 "2004-09-24T15:49:46Z")
Isn’t marriage and family law in itself an intrusion into personal relationships? I have stated that I support federal civil unions with equivalent rights with marriage. My support goes only so far, in that I believe pressing for more would be unrealistic. It would likely doom both gay marriage and civil unions, per the backlash being seen now. I also believe that civil unions must be expanded beyond couples involved in a sexual relationship, to help people who want to set up households and share benefits who can’t be considered a “couple” by any definition. Now, you might not like this position, and want more. Hunky-dory. Good luck getting all the support you need for more, though, because this backlash demonstrates that this level of change is too radical for most people to consider. And a prolonged fight over this won’t be good for the nation, nor would it help people who need benefits immediately. BTW, you can call your husband anything you want to, **SolGrundy**. I’m not going to dictate what people can privately or publicly say. But the language of the law is a different matter, as is the language of political rhetoric. When I stress the civil union over expanded marriage rights, I do so fully aware of what the American public will actually support. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/173 "2004-09-24T15:51:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m afraid I missed GLWasteful’s point on adoption. Could you either recap or point me in the right direction to find it? I’m sorry, it was **MaxTheVool** , [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5288003&postcount=87). > [@](#): > > Civil unions would thus be as portable as marriage within this country. Well, that’s nice, but as noted, there is no existing comity agreement for civil unions (or domestic partnerships, or PACS, or what have you) that allows for this, or gives a legal basis to argue for it should you end up in a state that doesn’t recognize it. So you’d have to create it from scratch at the federal level. On the other hand, that mechanism _already_ exists in the case of marriage, and has for a long time (and I’m confident that, for that reason, sooner or later the state DOMAs will be found unconstitutional). Even if a particular state doesn’t permit SSM, the existing long-founded comity of marriage will provide a much, much firmer basis to argue for portability than that of a civil union. For a Canadian example, we just got SSM in Nova Scotia today; one of the couples who brought suit argued on the basis that their Ontarian SSM should be recognized in Nova Scotia. I’m not saying that the situations are necessarily analogous right down the line, but same-sex marriage, I believe, will prove to be a much bigger breach in the wall of those who want to deny us _practical_ partner rights in general than an “equivalent” civil union status. Furthermore, what about a couple who gets married in another country and then settles in the US? Does their marriage get downgraded to a civil union? Or do they have to get civilly unioned again? Neither of those statuses is equal to that enjoyed by heterosexuals, who in nearly all (if not all) cases have their foreign marriage recognized _as a matter of course._ ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/174 "2004-09-24T15:52:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve said before that my proposed solution is civil unions, that by law confer all the rights, privileges, and incidents of marriage, enacted in every state, much the same as the present situation in which marriage laws are enacted in every state. Civil unions would thus be as portable as marriage within this country. Indeed, my REAL solution is to get the government out of the “marriage” business in its entirety; all “unions”, between same- and opposite-sex couples, should be subject to precisely the same level of recognition at law. We would then leave “marriage” to whatever any particular church, synagogue, temple, or coven wished to make of it. How would you feel if the SCotUS heard a case on same-sex marriage and issued a ruling something like this. > [@Theoretical Supreme Court Opinion](#): > > Marriage, as currently implemented in the several states, offends the establishment clause of the first ammendment. The overwhelming majority of usage and history of marriage is that of an intrinsically religious institution and should be the province of religious authorities with no interference from the state. Currently ministers must apply for state sanction and change their religious rites to confirm this state sanction. c.f. "By the power vested in my by [religious authority] **and the state of [wherever]** … " The court finds this situation offensive to the principles of seperation of church and state. Religious ceremonies such as marriage ceremonies should not require state sanction in the form of certification of the minister and acquisition of a state marriage license. The state process for formalizing a civil union shall henceforth be seperate from religious marriage ceremonies to prevent an undue state burden on religious institutions. I realize the language is a bit sloppy, but the intent is all there. Force the state out of the marriage process entirely. The state can issue civil unions, but keep its grubby little hands out of that which is the province of religion, Marriage. This means Unitarians and any religious sects which wish to provide same-sex marriages can do so without running afoul of any laws. This seems much safer than the government setting down a definition of marriage when even the religious sects don’t agree on it. Unitarians and some religions believe same-sex marriage is perfectly fine. I don’t see a way to keep the state involved which will not lead to burdening religion with state edicts as to how to run their churches. It has long disturbed me that ministers had to jump through state hoops and be certified by the state before they could perform a marriage. I think this is an unnecessary intrusion by the state into a religious ceremony. I would guess there is at least as much constitutional support for a ruling along these lines as there would be for one which imposes a state definition of marriage on religious institutions which should be free to define it themselves(i.e. the Unitarians). Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/175 "2004-09-24T15:53:32Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > When I stress the civil union over expanded marriage rights, I do so fully aware of what the American public will actually support. “What the majority will support” is an _exceedingly_ crappy basis to filter minority rights. In fact, I’d say it’s just about exactly backwards. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/176 "2004-09-24T16:01:33Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > How would you feel if the SCotUS heard a case on same-sex marriage and issued a ruling something like this. I realize the language is a bit sloppy, but the intent is all there. Force the state out of the marriage process entirely. The state can issue civil unions, but keep its grubby little hands out of that which is the province of religion, Marriage. I think the idea is good. However, renaming _all_ marriages would basically destroy all comity agreements presently extant, not only between states but between the US and other countries. It would throw everything into legal chaos for no good reason. I offer you, contrariwise, the text (paraphrased) of the draft bill that the government referred to the Supreme Court with regard to SSM: > [@](#): > > 1. Marriage is the voluntary union of two people to the exclusion of all others. > 2. Nothing in this Act shall alter the right of religious officials to decide which marriages they will solemnize. Upshot: A minister of religion can conduct religious marriage in whatever way and between whomever he or she likes. Those persons can also choose to become legally married at the same time, through a civil procedure which the religious official may be empowered to conduct. Should the people wish to be legally but not religiously married, or if their religion does not recognize their marriage (for some other examples, the case of a Catholic marrying a divorcé) other mechanisms (courthouses, etc.) are available to them with equal ease. In other words, we have legal marriage, and we have religious marriage, which may or may not take place at the same time depending on the wishes of the couple and religious official involved. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/177 "2004-09-24T16:04:28Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I have stated that I support federal civil unions with equivalent rights with marriage. My support goes only so far, in that I believe pressing for more would be unrealistic. It would likely doom both gay marriage and civil unions, per the backlash being seen now. You’re still dodging the question. Do you fundamentally believe that gays deserve equal marriage rights, or not? This has nothing to do with what you believe is achievable, but what you believe is right. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/178 "2004-09-24T16:07:44Z")
Said majority is currently changing state law and state constitutions around the country to make things much harder for gay couples. I don’t regard this as a good thing. Do you? And, for all the talk about civil rights movements and the work they have done, let’s not forget the role of Congress, which passed the relevant constitutional amendments in the first place, in addition to civil rights legislation. State legislatures and the citizens of the various states have passed similar legislation. Wouldn’t a legislative victory here be desirable? And wouldn’t the language of said legislation have to be carefully written so it would pass? I think absolutists, as I’ve said before, are risking it all, rather than sullying their position by achieving a compromise, however temporary. I don’t believe this to be smart politics. Just my opinion, though I have ample backing for it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/179 "2004-09-24T16:14:55Z")
I believe there should be a nationwide, federal and state recognized civil union benefit that affords all of the benefits and protections of marriage. I believe said benefit should be open to other people who need to set up a household but aren’t in a sexual relationship. There is a need for this union for these people as well. That’s my position. I’m not dodging any questions. I thought this was clear from my earlier posts. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/180 "2004-09-24T16:21:51Z")
I am all about throwing out existing comity agreements in favor of making marriage be a purely extra-legal affair, a phenomenon in which the government takes no position. I guaranfreakintee you that if the US replaced **all** future marriages with civil unions within (say) a two-year period, and announced that all existing comity agreements would expire at the end of that two-year period, most nations would be falling over themselves to get new comity agreements written up before that expiration date. And these new comity agreements could be written in a way to act as a model for other countries, and could be written in a way to ensure the rights of SS couples from the US that move to other countries. I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia, China, or Peru is going to recognize the validity of a SSM from the US, just because a comity agreement drawn up when legal SSM didn’t exist seems to suggest they should. They’re much likelier to recognize the validity of a US SS civil union, if the recognition of their own marriages in the US hinges on such recognition. Sometimes it’s nice to be the 800-pound gorilla. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593.md?page=10)