Employment Non-Discrimination Act
- Thread starter EL1
- Start date
I'd like to know something and I'll bet Ken can give me the legalities. And this is a bit of a convoluted thought so bear with me.
Gay couple goes in to apply for a marriage license. They get turned down. What is the exact reason the clerk would give them? Nowhere on my marriage license application did it say "Caution: you must be of different genders to get married". Is that written down somewhere, like a state law or something?
The next part is about civil unions. Isn't there some law that says that if you've lived together for a certain amount of time, it's considered legally a common-law marriage? I don't understand how same-sex couples can be denied the same rights as anyone else. Ken, if you (or anyone else) know, please explain this to me. In small words so I can understand.
Gay couple goes in to apply for a marriage license. They get turned down. What is the exact reason the clerk would give them? Nowhere on my marriage license application did it say "Caution: you must be of different genders to get married". Is that written down somewhere, like a state law or something?
The next part is about civil unions. Isn't there some law that says that if you've lived together for a certain amount of time, it's considered legally a common-law marriage? I don't understand how same-sex couples can be denied the same rights as anyone else. Ken, if you (or anyone else) know, please explain this to me. In small words so I can understand.
Vrai-
Congress passed a law in 1996 called the Defense of Marriage Act. This law makes it illegal for same sex couples to be married in the United States. Here's the paragraph from the Human Rights Campaign Website.
"Federal anti-gay marriage law
The U.S. Congress also passed an anti-gay marriage bill, called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) that President Clinton signed into law in 1996. DOMA explicitly excludes same-sex couples from receiving any of the federal protections, rights and responsibilities of marriage. For example, even if one or more states provided gay and lesbian couples with the right to marry, DOMA would block them from receiving Social Security, Medicare, Family and Medical Leave, health care, disability, military, veterans and other federal benefits. "
Also, 36 states have laws specifically banning marriages of same sex couples (Maryland is not one of them).
Vermont is the only state that has Civil Unions. Same sex couples in Vermont that have had a CU get the same benefits that married couples get, but only from the State of Vermont and business doing business in Vermont. Nothing Federal applies for them, though.
Congress passed a law in 1996 called the Defense of Marriage Act. This law makes it illegal for same sex couples to be married in the United States. Here's the paragraph from the Human Rights Campaign Website.
"Federal anti-gay marriage law
The U.S. Congress also passed an anti-gay marriage bill, called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) that President Clinton signed into law in 1996. DOMA explicitly excludes same-sex couples from receiving any of the federal protections, rights and responsibilities of marriage. For example, even if one or more states provided gay and lesbian couples with the right to marry, DOMA would block them from receiving Social Security, Medicare, Family and Medical Leave, health care, disability, military, veterans and other federal benefits. "
Also, 36 states have laws specifically banning marriages of same sex couples (Maryland is not one of them).
Vermont is the only state that has Civil Unions. Same sex couples in Vermont that have had a CU get the same benefits that married couples get, but only from the State of Vermont and business doing business in Vermont. Nothing Federal applies for them, though.
Vraiblonde,
I sure posted this in the wrong place originally. It was one of those hectic days. Anyway I’ll repeat it as EL1 didn’t cover your request fully and made an error when he said that Maryland didn’t have a law that banned same sex marriages. The law I cite below is rather specific as to what constitutes a marriage in this state. Plus I want to comment on DOMA some.
”Gay couple goes in to apply for a marriage license. They get turned down. What is the exact reason the clerk would give them?” Maryland law, Family Law Article section 2-201 “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.”
“Isn't there some law that says that if you've lived together for a certain amount of time, it's considered legally a common-law marriage?” Maryland requires a marriage license, therefore no common law marriages. Source Maryland Law, Family Law Article section 2-401 “An individual may not marry in this State without a license issued by the clerk for the county in which the marriage is performed.”
Seems unfair and discriminatory to me, but what do I know?
To DOMA, it seems clear from the wording of PL199-104 that it lacks Constitutional support. As this is a fairly short law I will post it.
Public Law 104-199 104th Congress An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage. <<NOTE: Sept. 21, 1996 - [H.R. 3396]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Defense of Marriage Act.>>
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following: ``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof ``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.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: ``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.''.
(b) SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse' ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of 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 a wife.''. [[Page 110 STAT. 2420]] (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item: ``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''. Approved September 21, 1996.
As to your question of Constitutionality, anyone that has read the Constitution can immediately see that the wording of section 2 above is absolutely contrary to the wording of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution which 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."
I sure posted this in the wrong place originally. It was one of those hectic days. Anyway I’ll repeat it as EL1 didn’t cover your request fully and made an error when he said that Maryland didn’t have a law that banned same sex marriages. The law I cite below is rather specific as to what constitutes a marriage in this state. Plus I want to comment on DOMA some.
”Gay couple goes in to apply for a marriage license. They get turned down. What is the exact reason the clerk would give them?” Maryland law, Family Law Article section 2-201 “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.”
“Isn't there some law that says that if you've lived together for a certain amount of time, it's considered legally a common-law marriage?” Maryland requires a marriage license, therefore no common law marriages. Source Maryland Law, Family Law Article section 2-401 “An individual may not marry in this State without a license issued by the clerk for the county in which the marriage is performed.”
Seems unfair and discriminatory to me, but what do I know?
To DOMA, it seems clear from the wording of PL199-104 that it lacks Constitutional support. As this is a fairly short law I will post it.
Public Law 104-199 104th Congress An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage. <<NOTE: Sept. 21, 1996 - [H.R. 3396]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Defense of Marriage Act.>>
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following: ``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof ``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.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: ``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.''.
(b) SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse' ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of 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 a wife.''. [[Page 110 STAT. 2420]] (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item: ``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''. Approved September 21, 1996.
As to your question of Constitutionality, anyone that has read the Constitution can immediately see that the wording of section 2 above is absolutely contrary to the wording of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution which 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."