Same-Sex Marriage - Equal Protection

Same-Sex Marriage - Equal Protection Clause

same-sex marriage and equal protection clause: analysis and recommendation for a legal position for justice in the supreme court for prevention of same-sex marriage

It is generally held among those who view themselves to be 'Constitutionalists' that anything not addressed in the U.S. Constitution was something that should not be the subject matter of the law and is therefore better left out of any type of modifications or amendments that make changes to the essence of the U.S. Constitution. This is held to be the same traditionally in relation to state constitutions within the individual U.S. states. The U.S. Constitution has an equal protection clause that states: "...states shall not deny any person the equal protection of the laws." The clause, interpreted to prohibit discrimination against women however; the issue of sexual orientation had not ever been addressed by the state courts of those who drafted the state constitution. This is true of many of the 'Common Laws' which are applicable even in today's world.

INTRODUCTION

The work of Michael J. McGivney, Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. entitled: "On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage" states that the Catholic religion, and the Christian religion in general have supporting authoritative sources which states: "...homosexuality refers to relations between men and women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex." The "psychological genesis" of homosexuality is one that has yet to be comprehended or is "...largely unexplained" and an act which is one of "...grave depravity, and that therefore tradition "has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and 'contrary to the natural law..." Therefore, according to McGivney "under no circumstances can they (same-sex marriage) be approved." (2007) the reason for citing the work of McGivney is not one for attempting to morally or ethically force a resolution of the reader on the subject as to whether same-sex marriages should be supported or even opposed but instead to make clear the characteristics of 'Common Law' to the reader of this work. The reason that McGivney holds that this can never exist is because under the terms of the 'Common Law' in the United States indeed there is ultimately no existing provision of any state constitution, with the exception of Massachusetts that holds any kind of element whatsoever that may be assumed to be applicable to same-sex couples and their marriage issues. Just as in the 'Equal Protection Clause' lack of having meant or assumed to address women, historical common law never presumed or considered addressing marital rights among same-sex individuals.

BACKGROUND of the STUDY

The work entitled: "Same-Sex Marriage in Washington" a publication of the Washington State Bar Association states that presently, only the sate of Massachusetts has rules that a constitutional guarantee exists which enables full marriage rights for same-sex couples. Two cases are related in this work and specifically the cases of: (1) Andersen v. King County; and (2) Castle v. State of Washington. In the case of Andersen v. King County, eight gay and lesbian couples in 2004 were denied marriage licenses in King County on the basis that state law prohibited same-sex marriage. A lawsuit was filed by the couples in King County Superior Court making the contention that the same-sex prohibit of Washington State violated provisions of the Washington State Constitution. The ruling sought in this case was one that stated that same-sex prohibition of marriage was void and a resulting order by the court to issue the marriage licensed requested by these eight couples. King County joined Washington State as a defendant in this lawsuit. Subsequent to the commencement of the lawsuit the court granted permission for additional individuals and organizations to join the lawsuit in the role of intervenor defendant who sought to uphold the law, which had been challenged in this lawsuit. An adjudication on August 4, 2004 by Judge William L. Downing states that two Washington State Constitutional provisions were violated by the marriage law in the State of Washington specifically: (1) the Privilege and Immunities Claus (Article 1, Section 12); and (2) the Due Process Clause (Article 1, Section 3) in the case Castle v. State of Washington, eleven gay and lesbian couples which included some who were already married elsewhere and who wanted the same legal recognition in Washington State filed an action in the Thurston County Superior Court against the State of Washington which sought a declaratory judgment ruling the marriage law in the State of Washington to be unconstitutional. The ruling, handed down on September 7th, 2004 by Judge Richard D. Hicks stated that the prohibition of Washington State of same-sex marriage was in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Claus (Article 1, Section 12) of the state Constitution of the State of Washington. The ruling in this case was appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which was heard through a direct review of both cases in a consolidation of the appeals in March 2004. The argument of the appellants was that the Supreme Court should issue a reversal of the decisions of the superior court decisions in Andersen and Castle on the facts that the "state government has a legitimate interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage." (Washington State Bar Association, 2006) Just as argued at the trial level of this case, it was stated by proponents of same-sex marriage in the State of Washington that the marriage statute in the state stands in violation of the Constitution of the State of Washington. During these hearings the Supreme Court considered other opinions when granting the petitions of several organizations that had requested the court's permission to submit legal argument briefs concerning the issues of this case in what is known as 'amicus curiae' which translates to "friends of the court." The briefs submitted by the organizations are made a part of the appellate record in the case. It is related that 20 amicus briefs were filed by: "...specialty bar associations, civil rights advocates, women's rights organizations, religious groups, state legislators, business groups, labor unions, mental health professionals, history scholars, gay rights advocates, advocates for traditional marriage, and others." (2006) the legal issues that are being appealed in this case are specifically the three Washington sate constitutional provisions stated previously and the question remains of what legal standards will be used by the Supreme Court in its analysis and evaluation of those issues. The claims made by those who support same-sex marriage are that they are being denied "the fundamental right to marry....a fundamental right is one that is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition...implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." (Washington State Bar Association, 2006) These fundamental rights have been established and include: "...private sexual conduct, procreation, contraception, family relationships, childrearing decisions, and education. It is clear that marriage is a fundamental right, but the parties disagree about the scope of the right." (Washington State Bar Association, 2006) the Washington State 'Privileges and Immunities Clause' states specifically that: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, [or] class of citizens... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." (Washington State Bar Association, 2006) the legal issue that the Supreme Court will be addressing is "...whether, when the law denies a person the option of marrying someone of the same sex, there is a constitutionally protected privilege that is not being made equally available to all citizens." (Washington State Bar Association, 2006) Those who support same-sex marriage are seeking an independently stronger interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Washington State.

I. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL ISSUES

The CSR Report for Congress entitled: "Same-Sex Marriage: Legal Issues" (2004) relates that the first state to legalize marriage between couples that were of the same sex was the state of Massachusetts. Federally, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted by Congress to prohibit "recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal enactments." (Smith, 2004; p.4) Several states have enacted state constitutional amendments that places limits on marriage to "...one man and one woman." (Smith, 2004; p. 4) Thirty-eight U.S. states have "...enacted statutes limiting marriage in some manner." (Smith, 2004; p.4) the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996 for the purpose of defining and protection "...the institution of marriage." (Smith, 2004; p.4) DOMA states specifically: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such Relationship (28 U.S.C. 1738C; as cited in Smith, 2004; p.4-5) DOMA states that the terms 'marriage' and 'spouse' as applied in federal enactments do not include homosexual marriage: "...In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." (Smith, 2004; p.5) Smith relates that a federal bankruptcy court in the Western District of Washington found DOMA to be constitutional and that no constitutional rights exists for the individual to marry someone of the same sex and as well that DOMA does not violate the Fourth, Fifth or Tenth amendments, not the principles of comity. (in re Lee Kandu and Ann C. Kandu, No. 03-51312 - Western District of Washington, Aug 17, 2004; as cited in Smith, 2004; p.5)

There are potential constitutional challenges to DOMA, which exist, and it is argued by some that "DOMA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' authority under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution." (Smith, 2004; p.5) Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." (as cited in Smith, 2004; p.5) According to Smith (2004), in the CRS Report to Congress: "Conversely, some argue that DOMA does nothing more than simply restate the power granted to the States by the full faith and credit clause. While there is no judicial precedent on this issue, it would appear that Congress' general authority to "prescribe...the effect" of public acts arguably gives it discretion to define the "effect" so that a particular public act is not due full faith and credit. It would appear that the plain reading of the clause would encompass both expansion and contraction." (p. 7) Smith writes that constitutional constraints on federal legislation exist and most notable in its relevance is the equal protection clause and the effect "of the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans which resulted the referendum-adoption provision of the Colorado Constitution being struck down under the equal protection clause which "repealed local ordinances that provided civil=rights protections for gay persons and which prohibited all governmental action design to protection homosexuals from discrimination." (Smith, 2004 p. 6)

In this particular case, it was held by the Court that: "...under the equal protection clauses, legislation adverse to homosexuals was to be scrutinized under a 'rational basis' standard of review. This classification failed to pass even this deferential standard of review, because it imposed a special disability on homosexuals not visited on any other class or people and it could not be justified by any of the arguments made by the State. The State argued that its purpose for the amendment was two-fold: (1) to respect the freedom of association rights of other citizens, such as landlords and employers who objected to homosexuality; and (2) to serve the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other protected groups." (Smith, 2004; p. 6)

Smith (2004) sates that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is another "possibly applicable constitutional restraint." (p.6) Additionally, is the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas "which struck down under the due process clause a state statute criminalizing certain private sexual acts between homosexuals." (2004; p. 6) the Fourteenth Amendment's due process privacy guarantee was found by the Supreme Court to extend to protect consensual sex between adult homosexuals. Smith states that the general rule regarding validation for marriage is the law existing in the state of the marriage. A marriage that complies with the state in which it was contracted will generally be held to be valid in other states. This is only an exception in cases where "...another State's law violates '...some fundamental principles of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal." (Smith, 2004 p. 7)

II. THEORETICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS for POSITION AGAINST the work of Somerville (2003) entitled: "A Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriages" submitted in a brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 12 April 2003 states: "Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationships that has the inherent capacity to transmit life - that between a man and a woman - marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life. To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex bonding. It would be to change the essence and nature of marriage as the principal societal institution establishing the norms that govern procreation." (2003) Somerville states that "Culture is what marks us as human; it is what distinguishes us and allows us to distinguish ourselves from other animals, and in the future from intelligent machines." (2003) in the past, religion was used "as an important forum and force in the foundation of culture - we did so by finding shared values through religion. That is not possible in secular society; one result is that it makes it more difficult to find consensus on values. To form a society, we must create a societal-cultural paradigm - the collection of values, principles, attitudes, beliefs, and myths, the 'shared-story' through which we find values and meaning in life, as both individuals and society." (Somerville, 2003) One argument posited supporting same-sex marriage by those who advocate the same involves the argument that restriction of marriage to couples that are opposite-sex upon the need of society for this basis of institution symbolizing the procreative nature of the man-woman relationship "means that opposite-sex couples who cannot or do not want to have children should be excluded from marriage, or more extremely, that only a man and a woman who produce a child should be allowed to marry." (Somerville, 2003; p.4) Marriage then, can be understood to stand representative for the potential: "... between a man and woman and their failure to produce offspring has no power to damage the symbolism which marriage between man and woman stands in representation of in both society and culture. According to Somerville, the role of marriage in: "...upholding respect for the transmission of human life - which is the first event in procreation - is of unusual importance at the present. We are facing u precedent challenges to that respect because of new techno science that opens up unprecedented modes of transmission of life." (2003) Exclusion of same-sex marriage is not relative to the homosexual orientation of those individuals or to them as individuals. Furthermore, it is not to adjudge their relationships as unworthy, but instead upholds the principle: "...that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life." (Somerville, 2003 p.5) Furthermore, Somerville relates that marriage institutionalizes this 'inherently procreative relationship" as being one that is "fundamental to society and requires recognition as such. Marriage carries important norms and values, 'memes'..." (Somerville, 2003; p.5) or long-standing units of deep cultural information related from generation to generation and specifically related to reproduction. (Somerville, 2003; paraphrased) Somerville relates of marriage that it "makes present in the present, the deep collective human memory concerning the norms and values surrounding reproduction." (2003; p.5) to convey the same authority and legal status of marriage between same-sex couples "...would seriously harm all of these societal level functions of the institution of marriage." (Somerville, 2003; p.5)

III. The POSITION of the AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

The American Psychological Association reports in a 2005 position statement that they stand in support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage because: "As physicians who frequently evaluate the impact of social and family relationships on child development, and the ability of adults and children to cope with stress and mental illness..." It has been noted by psychiatrist as to the "...invariably positive influence of a stable adult partnership on the health of all family members." (2005) Stated as cornerstones of the individual and family's network of social support are "...sustained and committed marital and family relationships..." which serve to assist human beings in phases of the individual's life characterized by challenge, stress, illness and even loss. A substantial amount of evidence exists that reveals the "long-term spousal and family support enhances physical and mental health at all stages of development." (APA, 2005) it is noted by the American Psychological Association that same-sex couples are "currently denied the important legal benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage" however, it appears in cases concerning children that the state courts are taking up these issues on a case-by-case basis and that the parents rights, once having been claimed by both same-sex parents, are being dealt with on the specific individual basis and facts of each individual case, just as in cases where the biological parents of the child are not living and relatives are attending to the upbringing of the child. There is also mentioned by the APA a certain inherent discrimination of same-sex couples in relation to health benefits, inheritance rights and other such benefits that are protected by law. Legal issues of sexual orientation is given attention in a recent Minnesota Law School document entitled: "Legal Issues of Sexual Orientation" published May 2007, which states: "Development of sexual orientation law accelerated greatly in the second half of the twentieth century. This is a direct result of gay people 'coming out', or in other words organizing, speaking out publicly and engaging with and in the legal system primarily through the court system. Legislation is another factor that affects the legal status of these individuals who are homosexual and is created at national, state and local levels within the government.

IV. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRACTICAL ASPECTS

The work of Witeck and Gates (2004) entitled: "Same Sex Marriage" published by the Urban Institute for Social Policy Research relates that more than 7,400 companies " now offer equal benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. But divergent national, state and local laws affecting same-sex couples and their families are sending businesses into unclear territory." (2004) it is related that while some states offer same-sex partners some of the benefits receiving by heterosexual married individuals, "at the same time, the federal Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the U.S. government from applying the 1,138 rights and responsibilities related to marriage to the same-sex couples and does not compel any state to recognize the same-sex marriages legitimate by another jurisdiction." (Witeck and Gates, 2004) it is acknowledged that there is a lot at stake in this debate where businesses are concerned and specifically that: Business leaders are not radical social engineers trying to define or redefine families. They respond to basic pocketbook needs and real marketplace challenges, such as competition and the need to attract and retain top workers. Creating welcoming and inclusive work environments, where gay couples are treated exactly like married heterosexual couples, makes good business sense. Uncertainty in a corporation can be distracting and expensive." (Witeck and Gates, 2004) According to Witeck and Gates:

Many same-sex couples may avoid and even refuse promotions and reassignments that require transfers to places where they and their families lack critical legal protections." (2004) One example provided by Witeck and Gates is: "For example, under state laws hostile to same-sex unions, children can become legal strangers to their parents. More than 150,000 same-sex couples are raising an estimated quarter-million children. More than two-thirds of these children live in states that don't permit or guarantee the right to a second-parent adoption, potentially denying their kids health care insurance and Social Security survivor benefits. Without a legal parent designation, some partners may not be allowed to authorize emergency medical treatment for their kids. While Massachusetts employers will benefit by attracting the very best and brightest to live and work in the state, some of their most highly prized managers and employees will be trapped in an employment limbo that limits their flexibility to follow certain career paths. In contrast, married heterosexual couples can rest assured that their spouses and families will remain lawfully intact no matter where they may go or what options a vibrant, multistate economy creates." (2004)

Witeck and Gates relate that factors leading to "de facto segregation for yearly 600,000 gay and lesbian couples is inclusive of domestic partner registries and civil unions." (2004) Furthermore, Witeck and Gates holds that: "The absence of marriage recognition for same-sex couples will create financial and logistical liabilities for business leaders, adversely affect employee morale, complicate employment and benefit polices hugely, and makes it harder for companies to relocate staff and their families. America's most successful companies have paved the way to workplace equality for all of their employees, straight and gay. Same-sex marriage provides the simplest mechanism for making all of America's companies more successful and their gay and lesbian employees more productive." (2004)

V. INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY ASSIGNED to SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

The work of MacEachern and Knapp (2004) entitled: "Same Sex Marriage Practice Issues for Lawyers" examines the derivation of the definition of marriage and state that it is taken for granted among most people that a legal rule which defines marriage is existing that offers a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman however, this is just not the case. The Pew Forum in its work entitled: "Same-Sex Marriage: Redefining Marriage Around the World" states that a 2007 Pew Research Center survey states findings that 55% of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage there are 37% of Americans who support same sex marriage. Reportedly, "the extension of legal rights to same-sex couples began in 1989 when Denmark created 'registered partnerships' that extended property and inheritance rights to same-sex couples. This marked the first time a national government guaranteed gay and lesbian households not only protection from harassment but also some of the legal rights long held by heterosexual married couples." (Lozano-Bietlat and Masci, 2007) by 1993 and 1995, Norway and Sweden, respectively had followed suit. Iceland then followed in 1996 with other countries in Europe subsequently following this example. The first of all countries to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in December 2000 when the legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry was passed by the Dutch parliament. Since that time Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa have passed the same legislation legalizing same-sex marriages.

The work entitled: "Reality Check: Marriage and Same-Sex Unions" states that a myth exists which holds that: "...extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will not weaken traditional marriage." (2003) the fact is that "such a radical redefining of marriage will fundamentally change the core elements on this foundational institution." (Family News, 2003) it is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundational human rights documents of the United Nations and worldwide states in Article 16: " "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nd) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights document of the United Nations states: "The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized." (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 23-2) it is stated in the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II, 31) that: "Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses, and husband and wife should be equal partners." (Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), 31) the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo) Chapter II, Principle 9 states: "Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses, and husband and wife should be equal partners." (International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo), Chapter II, Principle 9) the Fourth World Conference on Women-Beijing, Declaration, 15 states: "...equal sharing of responsibilities for the family by men and women, and a harmonious partnership between them are critical to their well-being and that of their families as well as the consolidation of democracy;" (Fourth World Conference on Women-Beijing, Declaration, 15)

VI. STANCE of INTERNATIONAL COURTS on SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

International bodies including the United Nations have made an indication that "...opposite-sex definition of marriage provides for a full realization of human rights." (Today's Family News, 2006) Courts in other countries have also stated the same conclusion. The European Court of Justice ruled in 1998 that recognition of same-sex partners as different from opposite-sex common-law partners was in full compliance with the European Community Treaty (Grant v. South-West Trains, Ltd., C-249). This issue has not come before the European Court of Justice noted that the European Commission for Human Rights considers different treatment of same-sex couples to be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and states: "I]n the present state of the law within the Community, stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages or stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex. Consequently, an employer is not required by Community law to treat the situation of a person who has a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex as equivalent to that of a person who is married to or has a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex." (Today's Family News, 2006)

VII. The 'COMMON LAW' - WHAT IS it and WHAT IS it in the ISSUE of SAME-SEX MARRIAGES INTERNATIONALLY?

Common Law' is just as it sounds...law - based on the 'common' guidelines or general rules of society. For example, in the United States, it is considered a criminal defense to steal, to kill, and so on. This is because the United States has based its laws, specifically its' 'common laws' upon the general guidelines or rule-of-thumb or that which the common man could assume to be reasonably be correct, upon Christian rules of conduct and behavior. Therefore, the rules in the area of morality and ethics assigned to killing and stealing would be in alignment with Christian principles exampled in the 'Ten Commandments' given to Moses by God and recorded on the stone tablets in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. Whereas polygamy is not assigned validity in the law in the United States in other countries not much thought is given because to have several wives is the customary or indeed 'common' thing to do and acceptable within that society thereby becoming known in American law as well as in many countries framework of legal issues to be known as 'Common Law'. In understanding common law on an international basis it is necessary to research on a broader bases than only the legal issues relating to same-sex marriage in the United States. While this work focuses primarily on this aspect in the United States and that is evidenced in the information provided within the course of this report, this work also has made a review of the work of Christine Vestal entitled: "Gay Marriage Decisions Ripe in 2 Courts" published March 1, 2007 relates that there are presently legal challenges in which homosexual individuals who have been denied the right to marry in the states of California, Connecticut and Iowa. Vestal states: "A lower court in Connecticut ruled in July 006 that excluding gay couples from marriage does not violate the state constitution because the state's civil union policy provides equal access to state spousal benefits. The case was appealed in November 2006 to the Supreme Court...expected to take the case up in 2007." (Vestal, 2007) California's highest court is present a case on appeal filed to test the statutory ban on same-sex marriages in the state of California and the alleged violation of the constitutional rights of homosexual couples. Vestal reports that California has been granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples who have registered as domestic partners since the 2005 finding by a circuit court judge that to deny them these rights violated the constitution and when appealed this decision was upheld. Vestal report that on August 31, 2007 an Iowa judge made the adjudication that "equal protection in the state constitution guarantee the right to marry to homosexual couples. Presently this December 2005 case is pending on appeal before the state Supreme Court in the state of Iowa. In 1999 a ruling by the Supreme Court in the state of Vermont which subsequently ordered the legislature that it was to provide to same-sex couples:."..the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." Connecticut in April 2005 voluntarily became the second state to adopt civil unions. New Jersey in February 2007 began issuing licenses for civil unions after its Legislature -- " within weeks of an October 2006 state high court ruling similar to Vermont's -- " opted to adopt civil unions rather than marriage for same-sex couples. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) signed a law in May 2007 approving civil unions. Civil union laws in both New Jersey and New Hampshire recognize civil unions performed in other states." (Vestal, 2007)