Doesn’t repealing 1738C mean that states DO have to recognize other state’s marriages? Or was 1738C always unnecessary because states never had to recognize marriages that went against their public policy? But it seems like bad strategy to repeal that part in this bill, especially if Nadler is worried about opponents “making false claims that our bill will force same-sex marriage on unwilling states.” Why not just leave that part in, then, for reassurance?
His bill also leaves California couples in Domestic Partnerships without federal recognition. Nadler said unions other than marriage are excluded from the legislation because “they’re different in every state.”
“Every state has marriage,” he said. “If you get married legally, you have the state rights … you should have the federal rights as well, and this bill deals simply with that.”
Couldn’t the bill find a way to include California couples, and other Civil Unioned couples? Otherwise, it makes it harder for states to experiment with other arrangements, which would mean no recognition at all in lots of states. It also makes it harder to pass this bill if it seems to force states to go all the way to marriage if they want to give protections to same-sex relationships, especially if it repeals 1738C for no good reason.
Is it designed to fail? It seems to put principle over progress.
