Civil Unions and Full Faith and Credit

As many of you know (particularly if you are avid readers of this blog), Connecticut recognizes same sex civil unions.  These unions are virtually identical to "marriage" (for state purposes), with some minor (though not unimportant) differences.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued an opinion today regarding recognition of same-sex relationships from out of state.  The short end of the stick is that Connecticut will recognize Vermont and California civil unions (whatever official names they go by), but not Massachusetts same-sex marriages.

The basic reasoning:

At present, our courts will conclude that Connecticut law and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution require Connecticut to recognize Vermont civil unions and California same-sex domestic partnerships. Other out-of-state, legally authorized same-sex domestic partnerships may be recognized as civil unions in Connecticut depending on how specific provisions of other States' laws compare to ours.

. . . .

The Connecticut General Assembly has specifically determined that same-sex marriages are contrary to Connecticut law. Because the legislature has determined that marriages in Connecticut may only be between a man and a woman, same-sex marriages performed under laws of any other State violate Connecticut's expressly articulated public policy and are not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution to be recognized here.

Putting aside whatever you think about same sex marriage in general (I'm in favor, as I've said many times), and the constitutionality of bans on same sex marriage (I'm torn), and focusing just on the intent of the Connecticut legislature, I think this does make some sense.

I wonder, however, if it would make more sense for same sex couples married in Massachusetts to automatically attain the status of "unioned" in Connecticut.  It seems to me that while the Connecticut legislature did not want to recognize same sex marriages, it clearly did want to convey the benefits and responsibilities associated with marriage on same sex couples who committed themselves in the manner we normally associate with marriage.  So why not just convert the marriages to civil unions at the border? 

There is an argument that it would be the province of the legislature to make that call; but remember that Attorney Blumenthal is advising State employees and residents as to how the legislature's words should be implemented in this case.  Converting foreign same sex marriages to the local category of civil unions seems as plausible (not to mention efficient) as refusing to recognize them altogether.