would it not be
better, from a conservative POV, to amend it to allow states to make their own
decisions without affecting other states rather than to amend it in a way that
prescribes at the Federal level? I wouldn't have a problem with an amendment that
specified that other states wouldn't need to recognize the marriage, I don't think.
If people were obligated to stay put, that would do it.
But people don't. They move around.
there are myriad scenarios of disaster.
A married gay couple from Vermont (assume it to be a yes state) takes a cross-country trip as part of a move to California, another yes state. They pack everything up, leave their Vermont residency, and think they're fine becasue they're heading to another yes state..
they stop overnight at a motel in West Virginia, in a county which has a law against unmarried people sharing a room in a motel. They're arrested, because in West Virginia they aren't married.
They get out of that jam, keep driving, get into Tennessee, another no state, and have an accident. The driver is seriously hurt. the companion wants to authorize medical treatment, but can't. For purposes of Tennessee law, they're only a friend. So the hosital authorities have to try to dig up a parent or sibling to authorize treatment. The non-spouse may not even be able to visit the injured person in the hospital. since they consider themselves married, they never bothered to fill out the paperwork for health care, etc. because it comes automatically with marital status.
The drive recovers, they keep driving. Stop in Wyoming, another no state. Their child gets kidnapped. Who's the parent who can make a complaint, deal with the cops, etc?? Cops are prevented from disclosing info except to a parent. But who's the parent??
The next crash they get into is in Utah, another no state. This time, the driver is killed. Since they had given up Vermont residency, but hadn't established residency in California, and died in Utah, that's where probate may take place. They forgot to make wills, since they figured that marriage took care of that (and it would have under Vermont law). But under Utah law they're not married. So Utah intestacy law takes over. The money all goes to the dead driver's parents, who disapprove of his lifestyle companion and so aren't about to share any of the money with the once and future but not present spouse. Plus, the parents of the driver sue for custody of the child because the companion is nothing but a friend under Utah law, and they may well win. The on-again-off-again spouse loses spouse, money, and child.
Those are only a few off-the-top-of-my-head options for what might happen. I hope these make you realize that the some states yes, some states no, option may have problems! |
