Question about all these gay marriages

[vraiblonde]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, how is this going to work? Just because some mayor says you're married doesn't mean you are legally recognized as such. Will they be able to file married on their taxes? Will they automatically be considered "next-of-kin"? If they split up, do they have to go through the courts?

I know there was a stink in SF because the marriage licenses were altered to say "bride-bride" or "bride-groom" and California invalidates altered marriage licenses.

I'm just curious if it's really legal or not.

 

[darkriver4362]

From hearing it all I think they have as much valididity as one of those fake Secret Agent liscences you can get on them novelty sites.

 

[cattitude]

I'm not sure Vrai. But this reminded me of a clip I saw on the news the other night. Two older gentlemen, in their 70's I say, adopted each other. They didn't want to get married but with no family they wanted to provide for each other. They'd been together for 56 years and had amassed quite a bit of assets. Their attorney said adoption was worth a shot so that's what they did.

 

[Kizzy]

I mentioned that in another thread. You cannot have laws from state to state on the issue. I just don't see how that is going to work at all. :shrug:

 

[Tonio]

I think the courthouses and many of the couples view this as civil disobedience.

 

[dems4me]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
At the risk of beating a dead horse, how is this going to work? Just because some mayor says you're married doesn't mean you are legally recognized as such. Will they be able to file married on their taxes? Will they automatically be considered "next-of-kin"? If they split up, do they have to go through the courts?

I know there was a stink in SF because the marriage licenses were altered to say "bride-bride" or "bride-groom" and California invalidates altered marriage licenses.

I'm just curious if it's really legal or not.

I was thinking it had something to do with creating precedent. Therefore when it gets before the Supreme Court you can use all the cases as examples of where it was declared legal???

 

[Ken King]

I would say that all of those recent same-sex marriages are invalid as they do violate current law. And that is what is wanted, an arrest, so that the matter can go before the court. Then the constitutionality, both Federal and State, of those laws can be challenged. We’ll see what happens.

 

[dems4me]

Originally posted by Ken King
I would say that all of those recent same-sex marriages are invalid as they do violate current law. And that is what is wanted, an arrest, so that the matter can go before the court. Then the constitutionality, both Federal and State, of those laws can be challenged. We’ll see what happens.

No they were using the new Massachusets supreme court ruling that made it ok -- that was now precedent so how can the other states not accept it if its now federal??? You got me all confused -- and while you are at trying to inform me, can you let me know the actual difference between a civil union and gay marriage? I thought I had them figured out but watching chris mathews the other night I had a curve ball thrown at me.

 

[Larry Gude]

Here's the thing about this...

...the people who march about in their pseudo military coups of civil disobedience are the very people that ENSURE that issues like abortion and gay marriage become inflammatory and devisive and stay that way long after they would have been settled amicably through our Constitutional processes.

None other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no relationship whatsoever to anything resembling a hate group, states that abortion was well on it's way to being settled through the ballot box and hence would have achieved legal status peacefully and correctly. It would have been fully vetted, voted on and very likely passed into law and passed judicial review had the Court not made up this indefensible gibberish that stands today as Roe v. Wade. Now we are stuck with this illusory right to abortion that we have today along with the attendant acrimony and insecurity for all that judicial fiat creates when operating out of thin air.

Same thing is happening with 'gay' marriage. Public attitude was maturing peacefully and at a very secure leisure that healthy democracies exhibit in superiority over anarchy and facsist, emotion based edicts.

Now, those who proclaim this right out of shear impatience and jeuvenille deliquency shove their wants down all the peoples throats at the very time peaceful process and debate is stepping purposefully and deliberately towards recognition.

Making law outside the democratic processes we hold dear based on the claim of 'love' is no less dangerous or cancerous to individual rights than anarchy based on hatred.

What these people are doing is wrong, debasing to those it claims to protect and a threat to the Constitutional rights of every single citizen in the nation. We are not a pure democracy. The wolves do not get to tell the sheep what is for dinner and they can't decide to just get married without societal approval first.

I find it insane that people who have worked long and hard to acheive an important goal in civil life would willingly turn it into trash at the goal line.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by dems4me
No they were using the new Massachusets supreme court ruling that made it ok -- that was now precedent so how can the other states not accept it if its now federal??? You got me all confused -- and while you are at trying to inform me, can you let me know the actual difference between a civil union and gay marriage? I thought I had them figured out but watching chris mathews the other night I had a curve ball thrown at me.

You cannot use that ruling to make it okay (not yet). It must be during a challenge of the law in the state where the criminal act occurred. They intend to use it in defense of what they have done, which is broke the law (that is when the precedent is used).

Civil union and marriage, for me? Not much difference. Civil union a ceremony endorsed by the state between two persons equal but different from a marriage. A marriage is an endorsed ceremony unifying a man and a woman exclusively. All other aspects of recognition would treat the terms identically.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by IM4Change
I mentioned that in another thread. You cannot have laws from state to state on the issue. I just don't see how that is going to work at all. :shrug:

"Work" is the key term. It doesn't have to "work" if the state(s) don't want it to. Check 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (AFAIK it's still the law of the land).

Few licenses are honored in all states....If you move, you need to get a new drivers' license, law license, surveying license, exterminator license. Some states allow some things, some don't (ex: concealed weapons license). If Dick-n-Harry want to move from San Fran to Bueford SC, they better check on the laws on the state to make sure the move is right for them. Works just fine.

 

[dems4me]

Originally posted by Ken King
You cannot use that ruling to make it okay (not yet). It must be during a challenge of the law in the state where the criminal act occurred. They intend to use it in defense of what they have done, which is broke the law (that is when the precedent is used).

Civil union and marriage, for me? Not much difference. Civil union a ceremony endorsed by the state between two persons equal but different from a marriage. A marriage is an endorsed ceremony unifying a man and a woman exclusively. All other aspects of recognition would treat the terms identically.

Thanks Ken, but I have some gay friends that are also confused as to their rights. They would like legal benefits of spouses, etc... would the state civil union grant it to them... is the only difference for marriage being that their marriage is recognized by the eyes of the Lord in a church or something?? Yes, I believe all of this is building up precedent to make it irrefutable to deny by the time it reaches the Supreme Court. I think that is why Bush has now declared proposing a constitutional amendment. I think they are all doing this legally.

 

[joedancer]

Originally posted by Ken King
A marriage is an endorsed ceremony unifying a man and a woman exclusively. All other aspects of recognition would treat the terms identically.

The term husband and wife does not neccessarily mean man and woman, though. I found this at:
http://www.nyfrf.org/samesex2.htm

"The New York State Constitution, like Massachusetts’ Constitution, does not prohibit same sex marriage. Also, the New York State Constitution does not define marriage. One would have to search the New York State Domestic Relations Law to find information on marriage in New York State. The Domestic Relations Law does not define marriage as being between a male and a female. It uses the terms husband and wife. The writers of the Domestic Relations Law assumed that everybody understood the proper definitions of these two terms. In today’s society of continually changing definitions of terms, it is possible that a judge could rule that the terms “husband” and “wife” do not necessarily mean a male and a female, thereby permitting same sex marriages."

 

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
At the risk of beating a dead horse, how is this going to work? Just because some mayor says you're married doesn't mean you are legally recognized as such. Will they be able to file married on their taxes? Will they automatically be considered "next-of-kin"? If they split up, do they have to go through the courts?

I know there was a stink in SF because the marriage licenses were altered to say "bride-bride" or "bride-groom" and California invalidates altered marriage licenses.

I'm just curious if it's really legal or not.

Just being anal here I know. However SF changed the wording of the licenses to say Applicant Number 1 and then Applicant Number 2. Not Bride Bride or Groom Groom.

Watched the interview with the Mayor of SF on GMA last week I think it was. I know and warned that I was being anal.

 

[Dymphna]

I think that whether or not the marriages are considered valid, the couple has entered a contract. They may actually have something written, (I bet Rosie has a pre-nup) or it may be a verbal contract. I think the division of assets etc. could be covered that way in the case of death or divorce. As far as next of kin, I think legally, that won't fly if the marriage is invalidated.

 

[ceo_pte]

Re: Here's the thing about this...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...the people who march about in their pseudo military coups of civil disobedience are the very people that ENSURE that issues like abortion and gay marriage become inflammatory and devisive and stay that way long after they would have been settled amicably through our Constitutional processes.

None other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no relationship whatsoever to anything resembling a hate group, states that abortion was well on it's way to being settled through the ballot box and hence would have achieved legal status peacefully and correctly. It would have been fully vetted, voted on and very likely passed into law and passed judicial review had the Court not made up this indefensible gibberish that stands today as Roe v. Wade. Now we are stuck with this illusory right to abortion that we have today along with the attendant acrimony and insecurity for all that judicial fiat creates when operating out of thin air.

Same thing is happening with 'gay' marriage. Public attitude was maturing peacefully and at a very secure leisure that healthy democracies exhibit in superiority over anarchy and facsist, emotion based edicts.

Now, those who proclaim this right out of shear impatience and jeuvenille deliquency shove their wants down all the peoples throats at the very time peaceful process and debate is stepping purposefully and deliberately towards recognition.

Making law outside the democratic processes we hold dear based on the claim of 'love' is no less dangerous or cancerous to individual rights than anarchy based on hatred.

What these people are doing is wrong, debasing to those it claims to protect and a threat to the Constitutional rights of every single citizen in the nation. We are not a pure democracy. The wolves do not get to tell the sheep what is for dinner and they can't decide to just get married without societal approval first.

I find it insane that people who have worked long and hard to acheive an important goal in civil life would willingly turn it into trash at the goal line.

Agreed...... There is always double standards for these people. They will criticize the conservatives for doing something, but then they willl take their similar actions and do it in the name of equal rights or civil liberties.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yep...

...imagine the reaction if mayors just started handing out liscences to carry guns left and right to anyone who wanted one because they felt citizens had a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Imagine.

What if mayors just started handing out business liscences to anyone who wanted one because they felt they had a 14th amendment right to equal protection or that the commerce clause entitled them to one.

What if mayors just said "hey, Joe Millionaire, give all the money you want to the candidate of your choice because you and I both feel it's a 1st amendment right".

What if mayors just started passing out medical marijuana passes to anyone who wanted one because Roe v. Wade clearly gives a person the right to privacy?

What if mayors just said "Here, have your property taxes back" to anyone who wanted it back because they felt it was in violation to the Constitutions protections against search and seizure.

What if mayors just opened up the jail and said "You know what, George Washington owned slaves, so, who are we to judge you? Bye bye!".

What if mayors just say "Hey, kids are going to do it anyway! No more age limit on smokes and brewskis! The Constitution probably means, somewhere, that kids have rights to!"

How about we just start driving on the left side of the road? The other states will catch on!

We want our kids to drive at 12! The other states will catch on!

We've decided on our own new interpretaion of contract law.

Let's just say "screw it all! What do you want the law to mean today??? Stautory rape? She was ALMOST 18!! Put a billboard in your front yard? Sure! How about a ferris wheel too! I love the circus!"

People are not fighting for a seat in the front of the bus. People are not engaging in civil disobedience to get an education.

What if I said to my people "Here, I'm not collecting state and federal witholding anymore fro myour paychecks, nor SS/med. It's your money!!! Do as you please with it!!!"

What if...

 

[Bonehead]

All that stuff would work for me but I do own many large caliber handguns, practice frequently and has lots of ammo. Bring them all on.

 

[ceo_pte]

Re: Yep...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...imagine the reaction if mayors just started handing out liscences to carry guns left and right to anyone who wanted one because they felt citizens had a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

A constitutional right that is being stripped away... but you won't see the liberals fighting for that one. Because they have been fooled into believing if you take away the guns from the law abiding citizens, then the thiefs won't be able to get them either....

 

[Tonio]

Larry, you have a point. It's one thing when private citizens stage acts of civil disobedience. But public officials have a duty to uphold the law, even when they disagree with it.