Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wuli
....civil partnership laws achieved all of that.

What "civil partnership laws?" Most states didn't pass those either. In fact, Texas' Marriage Amendment went so far as to forbid even any "marriage lite" arrangements as recognized by the government.

20 posted on 03/15/2024 9:01:46 AM PDT by fwdude (.When unarmed Americans are locked up for protesting a stolen election, you know it was stolen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: fwdude

“What “civil partnership laws?” Most states didn’t pass those either.”

New Jersey, California, Nevada, Colorado and Illinois had either a “civil partnership” law or a “domestic partnership” law. Others were considering them when the “gay marriage” case headed to the SCOTUS.

The legal “stumbling block” to them was the wrong headed Clinton DOMA (”Defense of Marriage Act”). That act made federal recognition of civil partnerships or domestic partnerships no allowed.

Conservatives should have admitted that and preferring to not legalize “gay marriage” and get the very concept of marriage changed, Conservtaives should have agreed to repeal Clinton’s DOMA law, and allow federal recognition of civil partnerships. Had the DOMA law been repealed, there would have been no legal reason to pursue “gay marriage” at the SCOTUS, because federal law would not be standing in the way of recognizing civil partnerships at the federal level.


22 posted on 03/15/2024 9:20:54 AM PDT by Wuli (ena)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson