Judge rules Va gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[Maren]

I'm kind of hoping that marriage as we know it (meaning a government licensed institution) goes away.

In our society, there's nothing to stop two people from living together, I don't see what the draw is in paying the government to get married

In this issue, I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides (I'm not making reference to any poster in this thread particularly, or even this thread in particular)

To certain folks on the left...
If it's really about the pursuit of happiness, you don't need a piece of paper to be happy and live with the one you love. (My GF & I have made that very decision, we're not getting a marriage license, we just filled out the appropriate forms to give the other power of attorney and make each other beneficiaries). With that being said, if it's about the benefits that go along with the marriage license, then just be honest and say 'it's about the benefits" and don't try to make it about some noble quest for the pursuit of happiness.

To be honest, I think many gays would be happy to not have a legal marriage, if they could have their family rights protected. One of the major issues I've seen is that, without a government recognized relationship, they are frequently denied things that same sex couples routinely are given -- things like hospital visitation, medical decisions, and inheritance.

I know there was a member of this board who posted his experience with his partner dying. Because the state he was in did not allow for joint ownership of homes unless the couple was legally married, the home went into the estate (complete with inheritance taxes).

Worse, most states have laws giving preference to family members when it comes to inheritance. Because non married spouses are not "family members", they do not inherit. Worse, in many cases the family of the partner, if there is a will leaving things to the surviving partner, have succesfully challenged those wills. In the case of the CF member, I recall he inherited nothing; complete with losing the home and anything in the home that he could not prove belonged to him -- including everything jointly owned.

Gays also insist on marriage, in general, because there would be no guarantee that civil unions would always have the same rights and privileges of marriage. Segregation is a good example of that fear; designed to make everything the same for both Whites and Blacks, just separate, as time went along Black schools and neighborhoods received lesser facilities (schools, parks, etc.) and protection (police and fire).

To certain folks on the right...
Don't advocate small government & less spending in one instance, but then justify frivolous spending by Republicans in cases surrounding this topic (DOMA and similar things...) ...and also, please stop comparing it with incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, and pedophilia as a talking point. Anytime I'm in one of these thread and try to make some progress in justifying states' rights to make their own decisions on it, undoubtedly one of these will show up and derail the whole thing.


I've also seen people try to misuse the FF&C (Full Faith & Credit) clause in this matter too... Since it is a state licensed institution at the current juncture, people have a habit of using this to try to trump other state's laws. Yet, we don't hear those same people complaining about other cases where FF&C isn't being applied to other types of state licenses.

Right now, Concealed Carry and Driver's licenses are two types of state issued licenses that vary greatly from state to state.

We'll go with the drivers license as an example
Driving Age by State

I've never heard anyone say "In many states, you can get a full drivers license at age 17, yet, in Indiana, you have to be 18...Indiana's 17 years old aren't getting equal protection under the law due to FF&C & the 14th amendment"...I've never heard anyone say that these laws are a case of age discrimination, etc...

You are misunderstanding Full Faith and Credit. States still get to select their own laws, such as for driver's licenses -- it merely requires other states to recognize a valid license issued by another state. FF&C has never required states to issue licenses based on another state's laws.

As for marriage, a major reason for DOMA being passed was to prevent states from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. This is the portion of DOMA that is still enforceable -- though it is questionable how much longer it will be before it is struck down. For example, the recent ruling in Kentucky, requiring the state to recognize gay marriages from other states, could lead to the remainder of DOMA being struck down.

As for concealed carry permits, the requirements to get the permit vary widely between states, as well as the laws governing firearms; by contrast, driver's licenses typically have fairly standard requirements and laws regulating driving. I believe the US Congress even looked at mandating FF&C for concealed carry permits (around 2010) and decided it would lead to more problems than it might solve because of the major differences between states.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are misunderstanding Full Faith and Credit. States still get to select their own laws, such as for driver's licenses -- it merely requires other states to recognize a valid license issued by another state. FF&C has never required states to issue licenses based on another state's laws.

As for concealed carry permits, the requirements to get the permit vary widely between states, as well as the laws governing firearms; by contrast, driver's licenses typically have fairly standard requirements and laws regulating driving. I believe the US Congress even looked at mandating FF&C for concealed carry permits (around 2010) and decided it would lead to more problems than it might solve because of the major differences between states.

These two statements seem to be contradicting each other...

On one hand you say that it requires states to honor licenses for other states (which certain states currently do not do for all marriage licenses), but in the other statement, you're saying that if two states have conflicting laws on a particular matter, it would lead to more problems than it would solve.

Which is it?

Either FF&C applies for every license (even when it's inconvenient), or FF&C only applies when two states' rules pertaining to the license are the same.

The 1st would mean that an SSM marriage performed in another state would have to be honored to the dismay of some conservative residents in certain states and a CCW holder from Alabama would be able to carry in NYC to the dismay of most of the liberal residents.

I'm not arguing for or against anything here...just asking for consistency.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To be honest, I think many gays would be happy to not have a legal marriage, if they could have their family rights protected. One of the major issues I've seen is that, without a government recognized relationship, they are frequently denied things that same sex couples routinely are given -- things like hospital visitation, medical decisions, and inheritance.

As I stated in my previous post, my GF & I are foregoing the whole marriage thing and just decided to live together.

We've already got the paperwork drawn up that will give us everything that a married couple would have (and in all honesty, it was way cheaper than a marriage wedding would've been )

 

[Fireball1244]

As I stated in my previous post, my GF & I are foregoing the whole marriage thing and just decided to live together.

We've already got the paperwork drawn up that will give us everything that a married couple would have (and in all honesty, it was way cheaper than a marriage wedding would've been )

No, you don't. Because many of the rights of marriage cannot be conveyed by a contract.

No contract can extend your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to your girlfriend -- unless you're married, she can be forced to testify against you in a court of law.

No contract can ensure that you will be recognized as next of kin by hospitals, courts, etc.

No contract will allow your estate to transfer to her tax-free.

No contract will allow your Social Security and other government-protected benefits to transfer to her.

No contract can ensure you second-parent adoption rights for any child she adopts.

There's a reason that government issues marriage licenses -- there are a multitude of rights and privileges associated with marriage that can only be facilitated through some form of government recognition.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

No, you don't. Because many of the rights of marriage cannot be conveyed by a contract.

No contract can extend your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to your girlfriend -- unless you're married, she can be forced to testify against you in a court of law.

No contract can ensure that you will be recognized as next of kin by hospitals, courts, etc.

No contract will allow your estate to transfer to her tax-free.

No contract will allow your Social Security and other government-protected benefits to transfer to her.

No contract can ensure you second-parent adoption rights for any child she adopts.

There's a reason that government issues marriage licenses -- there are a multitude of rights and privileges associated with marriage that can only be facilitated through some form of government recognition.

Bingo.

To say "if you want the benefits admit it and don't act like it is merely a pursuit of happiness" is erroneous. The two are not, in any way, exclusionary. I want to marry my partner - both in the legal and the social sense - someday. It is a pursuit of happiness issue, and is a legal issue - i want to live with him just as my parents live with each other, and that includes the multitudes of protections and benefits afforded by the government (state and federal [which we could get now]).

Being able to know he is well-off when I go (as I will likely die first, despite his being notably older) is an issue of happiness and peace: him being able to inherit what was mine legally and without large inheritance taxes, for him to be able to receive what social security and such I accrue in my work, for him to be able to make the final decisions legally for me (which admittedly, is not even cut-and-dry for married couples), etc.

 

[Maren]

These two statements seem to be contradicting each other...

On one hand you say that it requires states to honor licenses for other states (which certain states currently do not do for all marriage licenses), but in the other statement, you're saying that if two states have conflicting laws on a particular matter, it would lead to more problems than it would solve.

Which is it?

Either FF&C applies for every license (even when it's inconvenient), or FF&C only applies when two states' rules pertaining to the license are the same.

The 1st would mean that an SSM marriage performed in another state would have to be honored to the dismay of some conservative residents in certain states and a CCW holder from Alabama would be able to carry in NYC to the dismay of most of the liberal residents.

I'm not arguing for or against anything here...just asking for consistency.

Let's try this again. The main purpose of the FF&C clause is to make court rulings in one state binding in the other states. One place this has shown to be important is in child custody/support cases. For example, without FF&C, if a parent wanted to not pay child support payments, that parent would merely need to move to another state. Another issue is where parents would "kidnap" their child from the parent who was given custody, move to another state and try to get courts there to rule them as the custodial parents -- with FF&C, the original states ruling is binding in both states, and the child must be returned.

Now, licenses are a gray area and, typically, have to be legislated to fall under FF&C. To use another example, legal licenses are typically only valid in the state where issued. Again, much of this is because state laws can vary widely between states and, unless a lawyer is knowledgeable about the laws in a state, it could cause mistakes in representing clients.

Marriage and driver's licenses have been added to FF&C, while other types of licenses (such as most professional licenses and concealed carry permits) have not been included. There is no Constitutional requirement to honor licenses under FF&C.

The argument with same sex marriage is that marriage licenses are typically covered, just that DOMA specifically denies that right to same sex couples. Because of this, the claim is that it is unconstitutional to deny same sex couples FF&C marriage rights; that to do so is discriminatory based on gender/sexual orientation and unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause. A court in Kentucky has agreed with this argument, and we'll see what happens as this is appealed through the court system.

By contrast, licenses such as concealed carry and professional licenses are denied FF&C status, so there is no discrimination claim as it applies to all of those license/permit holders equally.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm kind of hoping that marriage as we know it (meaning a government licensed institution) goes away.

I see your point and I don't really disagree with it but I do find it a bit unrealistic. Far too many people have their marriages recognized by the government and far too many people are fighting to have their marriage recognized, for the government to just get out of the marriage business all together. Though I agree that a marriage shouldn't depend on government approval to be valid but this is the system we have. I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

In our society, there's nothing to stop two people from living together, I don't see what the draw is in paying the government to get married

Again, I see your point and while I don't disagree with it, I feel most are fighting for gov to recognize a group of citizens who feel like they are being treated as second class citizens.
Anyone who is in a committed relationship has (or should have) the right to officialize their relationship with this piece of paper that not only says they're married but also grants them several government benefits. Benefits that are coming from a secular government.
I don't see why homosexuals in committed relationships can't be a part of that as well. If they can't, then the people opposed to the idea must show why they can't marry. But unfortunately for them, their logic stems from ancient superstitions about human sexuality. From a time when gays were literally killed for being what they are. Which is actually nothing more or less than human.

In this issue, I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides (I'm not making reference to any poster in this thread particularly, or even this thread in particular)

To certain folks on the left...
If it's really about the pursuit of happiness, you don't need a piece of paper to be happy and live with the one you love.

It's not about the pursuit of happiness. It's about the government recognizing that gay relationships are in fact, no different than straight relationships (other than the obvious difference).
I mean... Why is it that people have no problem with these celebrities that'll get married, have an extravagant ceremony and then file for divorce three months later and cash out on this supposedly holiest of holy traditions, Christians revere so deeply. No one has a problem with that. But, GAYS!!!11!!1 That's just spitting in gods face for them to get married.

(My GF & I have made that very decision, we're not getting a marriage license, we just filled out the appropriate forms to give the other power of attorney and make each other beneficiaries). With that being said, if it's about the benefits that go along with the marriage license, then just be honest and say 'it's about the benefits" and don't try to make it about some noble quest for the pursuit of happiness.

That's great that that is what you and your girlfriend have planned for yourselves. Some people actually do want to get married though, and not just have a wedding ceremony. People want their marriage recognized by some authority to make it official. That authority does not have to be God. To some, the government is enough.

It's like, you can be a great driver but you're really not a real driver unless you have a driver's license. Government recognition makes you a real driver. Government recognition makes your marriage a real marriage.

To certain folks on the right...
Don't advocate small government & less spending in one instance, but then justify frivolous spending by Republicans in cases surrounding this topic (DOMA and similar things...) ...and also, please stop comparing it with incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, and pedophilia as a talking point. Anytime I'm in one of these thread and try to make some progress in justifying states' rights to make their own decisions on it, undoubtedly one of these will show up and derail the whole thing.

Yes. The slippery slope argument is tired and should be retired.
It only makes their case weaker.

I've also seen people try to misuse the FF&C (Full Faith & Credit) clause in this matter too... Since it is a state licensed institution at the current juncture, people have a habit of using this to try to trump other state's laws. Yet, we don't hear those same people complaining about other cases where FF&C isn't being applied to other types of state licenses.

Right now, Concealed Carry and Driver's licenses are two types of state issued licenses that vary greatly from state to state.

We'll go with the drivers license as an example
Driving Age by State

I've never heard anyone say "In many states, you can get a full drivers license at age 17, yet, in Indiana, you have to be 18...Indiana's 17 years old aren't getting equal protection under the law due to FF&C & the 14th amendment"...I've never heard anyone say that these laws are a case of age discrimination, etc...

I never thought of setting an age limit for something like being able to drive a car as discrimination and I guess it is in a way. But either way, you reach a certain age and there is not a single person that can be turned away from at least taking the written exam for a drivers license. Doesn't matter what race, religion, nationality, gender or sexual preference.
I see your point that different states have different laws but still, there's not a single state you're not allowed to drive in because you don't have a license from that particular state. There's not a single state that doesn't allow you to apply for a driver's license if you meet the basic requirements, age, vision etc.

That's FF&C right there. Having a California Driver's license will get me out of a driving without a license ticket if I get pulled over in Nevada.

If I get married in California, I don't have to get remarried if I move to Michigan for the state of Michigan to recognize my marriage.

Gays don't have this freedom.

 

[trunks2k]

We've already got the paperwork drawn up that will give us everything that a married couple would have (and in all honesty, it was way cheaper than a marriage wedding would've been )

As others have mentioned; no, whatever paperwork you drew up is not giving you everything a married couple would have. There's a lot of things you get only if you are legally married. If your intent is to spend your lives together, why spend the effort of drawing up paper work that will give you a sub-standard set of rights and benefits with each other?

$50-$100 and a couple hours at city hall is all you need to get married. Well, depending on the state you get married in, maybe two trips to city hall as some states require a waiting period between obtaining a marriage license and actually getting married.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As others have mentioned; no, whatever paperwork you drew up is not giving you everything a married couple would have. There's a lot of things you get only if you are legally married. If your intent is to spend your lives together, why spend the effort of drawing up paper work that will give you a sub-standard set of rights and benefits with each other?

What's one thing that a married couple would have that we wouldn't?
(Keep in mind, we have legal/medical power of attorney covered, made each other primary beneficiaries with our life insurance policies, and have the belongings covered via our will)

The only thing we don't have is the ability to file jointly on our taxes (which wouldn't benefit people at our income level anyway) and we can't jump on a joint healthcare plan.

 

[trunks2k]

What's one thing that a married couple would have that we wouldn't?

Fireball listed several of them.

(Keep in mind, we have legal/medical power of attorney covered, made each other primary beneficiaries with our life insurance policies, and have the belongings covered via our will)

All of which are much easier for someone to dispute than a marriage.

I honestly just don't get the logic behind it. If your intent is to stay together, why risk writing a set of contracts to (imperfectly) emulate the rights granted by a marriage, which I would assume one would have to pay a lawyer to draw up to ensure they are decent, when for a small amount of money and a short trip to city hall you could have the same benefits and more, which are legally stronger?

 

[Maren]

What's one thing that a married couple would have that we wouldn't?
(Keep in mind, we have legal/medical power of attorney covered, made each other primary beneficiaries with our life insurance policies, and have the belongings covered via our will)

The only thing we don't have is the ability to file jointly on our taxes (which wouldn't benefit people at our income level anyway) and we can't jump on a joint healthcare plan.

I think this post did a decent job of pointing out some of the rights you don't have:

No, you don't. Because many of the rights of marriage cannot be conveyed by a contract.

No contract can extend your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to your girlfriend -- unless you're married, she can be forced to testify against you in a court of law.

No contract can ensure that you will be recognized as next of kin by hospitals, courts, etc.

No contract will allow your estate to transfer to her tax-free.

No contract will allow your Social Security and other government-protected benefits to transfer to her.

No contract can ensure you second-parent adoption rights for any child she adopts.

There's a reason that government issues marriage licenses -- there are a multitude of rights and privileges associated with marriage that can only be facilitated through some form of government recognition.

Additionally, the courts can overrule some of those issues if her family wants control of her medical decisions or her estate -- as they are next of kin. Granted, it may mean going to court, but courts often rule in favor of family over legal paperwork. This is particularly true if you haven't updated your legal paperwork in the last few years.

Worse, imagine you are in an accident together and end up in the hospital. You injuries end up being minor but hers are serious and immediate decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, you left the legal paperwork at home or, worse, the paperwork was in the car and possibly destroyed in the accident. At this point, you have to find some way to get the paperwork to the hospital before you can make any decisions or have any rights.

It's also worth noting about inheritance taxes, as you will be required to pay tax against anything you "inherit" from her (or she from you), most of which was likely joint property -- whereas spouses are exempt. This could include the house, particularly if you live in a state that does not allow joint home ownership by unmarried couples.

 

[Fireball1244]

What's one thing that a married couple would have that we wouldn't?

Did you just skip over my post? I listed several, just off the top of my head.

(Keep in mind, we have legal/medical power of attorney covered, made each other primary beneficiaries with our life insurance policies, and have the belongings covered via our will)

Your medical power of attorney contract is just a piece of paper. As someone with many gay friends, and a few unmarried straight friends, I can tell you that those are often worth no more than the paper they're written on.

In a situation that your girlfriend to express her own medical wishes, her parents could assert their rights as "next of kin" to challenge your authority. As you aren't family, you could be barred from your girlfriend's hospital room. These things happen not routinely, but fairly often.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Straight people have the right to marry a person of the gender they are attracted to whereas gay people are prevented this right in many states. That's not equality.

With those who claim otherwise I really wonder if they would be saying the same thing if the law said you could only marry someone of the same sex. Would they be supporting that law as a good example of equality and justice? I can only imagine how they would react when the gay person said "hey you get to marry someone of the same sex to why are you complaining."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your medical power of attorney contract is just a piece of paper. As someone with many gay friends, and a few unmarried straight friends, I can tell you that those are often worth no more than the paper they're written on.

In a situation that your girlfriend to express her own medical wishes, her parents could assert their rights as "next of kin" to challenge your authority. As you aren't family, you could be barred from your girlfriend's hospital room. These things happen not routinely, but fairly often.

In my own family's experience, the legal documents do work...

While there are none in my family that pertain to a partnership like two people living together, my mom had the medical power of attorney (as well as beneficiary rights) for my grandmother (her mother-in-law) while my uncle on my dad's side (my grandmother's son) was still alive. My grandmother did that due to a falling out between her and her son.

I won't get into the entirety of the family drama...but needless to say, the legal documents held up in court.

 

[MachZer0]

Straight people have the right to marry a person of the gender they are attracted to whereas gay people are prevented this right in many states. That's not equality.

With those who claim otherwise I really wonder if they would be saying the same thing if the law said you could only marry someone of the same sex. Would they be supporting that law as a good example of equality and justice? I can only imagine how they would react when the gay person said "hey you get to marry someone of the same sex to why are you complaining."

That's simply untrue as I explained in detail earlier

 

[trunks2k]

In my own family's experience, the legal documents do work...

While there are none in my family that pertain to a partnership like two people living together, my mom had the medical power of attorney (as well as beneficiary rights) for my grandmother (her mother-in-law) while my uncle on my dad's side (my grandmother's son) was still alive. My grandmother did that due to a falling out between her and her son.

I won't get into the entirety of the family drama...but needless to say, the legal documents held up in court.

It's not that the legal documents never hold up in court. In the situation you describe you had two family members disputing something, one had been previously been granted POA. That's a bit different from an unrelated person having been granted POA who is in a dispute with a family member (i.e. parent). In that case, things tend to get a lot more complicated. It's much easier for a parent to contest the POA of an unrelated third party and either make it a very long, drawn out process or be successful than it is for a parent to dispute the decisions of a spouse.

Not that family members haven't managed to make a mess of a spouse's medical decisions (e.g. Terry Shiavo), but it's much harder to do.

This is something same sex couples who have attempted to emulate marriages as closely as they can with legal documents have come to learn much to their dismay. It simply is not the same.

And that's just when it comes to making medical decisions.

 

[Cearbhall]

Judge rules VA gay marriage ban unconstitutional - NBC12.com - Richmond, VA News

I'm not even that concerned about whether the ban dies, though of course I want it to. At this point, the goal is just to rack up court cases in as many states as possible so that one of them makes it to the Supreme Court and decides it for the whole country. Shouldn't be long now...

 

[Queller]

As I stated in my previous post, my GF & I are foregoing the whole marriage thing and just decided to live together.

We've already got the paperwork drawn up that will give us everything that a married couple would have (and in all honesty, it was way cheaper than a marriage wedding would've been )

Cheaper than a marriage wedding? In Maryland it costs $35 for the license and $25 to be married at the courthouse. $60 seems pretty cheap to me. How much are you paying to have all that paperwork drawn up?

 

[Cearbhall]

That's simply untrue as I explained in detail earlier

Cool, then straight people will benefit from same-sex marriage, too.

It's a complex issue for many reasons. It's hilarious when people just scream about "The gays!!!" ruining marriage. There are asexual, bisexual, intersex, and transgender people who benefit from the legalization of same-sex marriage, too.

 

[Phred]

Religious institutions wish to control the marriage bond. Fine. They don't have to marry any couple they don't wish to marry. They also cannot handle any state documents. So if you wish your marriage to be recognized by the state you will have to show up at a designated state location and sign the proper documents. A church wedding will have all the necessary weight of a marriage in the sight of whatever god you wish. A state wedding will have actual meaning as in it will matter come tax time. This is what will happen because of your discrimination. You will have stripped the churches of meaning. Is it any wonder that this is such a divisive issue?