Wynni wrote:
As far as that goes, sweetie, if enough of the legislature gets together, a civil union bill could pass despite who's president.
And if one state says you're married, your union isn't anulled or canceled in another.
Once married, the other states HAVE to recognize it. So really, leaving it up to the states means a better chance of getting marriage rights.
That would be nice; if a civil union bill passed, then it'd be merely up to where I am in my life and where I need to go in life that would decide whether I stay or move someplace else. However, separate but equal is always meant to separate and never really equal, so it's kind of a situation of it being tolerable and acceptable, but the push for full marriage would never be gone.
I should also add that, although such a bill might pass a majority Democratic Congress, the President would veto it the moment he gets it, and there's no way they'd get the 2/3 majority to override the veto.
As for what you said about the states, that's unfortunately not true. What makes that so, that every state must recognize a marriage performed by another, is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. For some reason, it doesn't apply to gay marriage, and I'm not sure whether it's due to the DOMA, to laws passed in each state prohibiting it (this seems to be the case), or judicial precedent, but eh, either way, it's unfortunately not true. :(