Hey, there! Log in / Register
Appeals court says Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
By adamg on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:29am
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston ruled today that depriving same-sex spouses of federal benefits available to other spouses violates their equal protection rights.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Equal protection of the laws
About time. Had the framers of this harmful law been serious about "defending marriage", they would have excluded second spouses from benefits.
Then again, they were pretty much all multiply-divorced.
yup
progress slowly marches forward.
Too bad
Our President threw gay people under the bus and most lib dems are too thick to comprehend this.
Y'know that interview where he said he was pro gay marriage?
Well, in that same interview he added that he believes that gay marriage should be left up to the state, and not subject to any Federal laws. So that means he is basically for the status quo whereby 30 or so states can still enact legislation to prohibit gay marriage AND gay people still will not be able to enjoy any of the 1000's of rights that come with Federally-recognized marriage.
We fight the battles we can
We fight the battles we can. Obama may be a conservative by most sane metrics, but the alternative was (and will be) far worse.
I'm basically at the point now where if any politician would make a sincere (snicker) promise to push for and implement preferential voting/instant runoff, then I don't care if he's in the KKK - he can sit in his office for the next 2/4/6 years burning hookers for all I care - You get me a new voting system, and you can have a nice taxpayer-financed vacation for a few years while we start working on getting a *real* democracy back.
Allow me to appeal to your greed and short-sightedness, politicians! Who cares about the next guy as long as you get yours, right?
Too thick is better being too
Too thick is better being too bigoted.
Not exactly
Don't have my constitution handy at the moment, but one of the commerce clauses is used to imply that agreements made in one state are valid in other states - so things like drivers licenses and marriages are valid across state lines. I think this same enforcement was used to effectively make interracial marriage legal everywhere once at least one state made it legal. The same argument needs to make it to the supreme court though for gay marriages... (this will also trump the states' constitution changes, as state constitutions can't violate the US constitution...)
@johnmcboston
It's the full faith and credit clause and it requires states to honor the valid judgments of other states, which is why opposite sex couples can get married at the Chapel of Elvis in Vegas and their marriage is valid in their home state.
You'd think that would be the end of if, but there's an exception to the full faith and credit clause for judgments of other states that violate the explicit public policy of the home state. In the case of equal marriage, then, the question is whether all the states that have amended their constitutions or enacted laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying would be able to claim the exception and continue to discriminate against us.
but what about
Thanks for the clarification JPG.
But how did interracial marriage become 'legal' in all states? Did the supreme court enforce the 'faith and credit' clause and invalidate state laws? Or were they all just state laws and not constitutional amendments at the time?
Great question, johnmcboston,
about how Loving v. Virginia became the law of the land. The Supreme Court struck down the state law that criminalized the Lovings' marriage because it was based on race and could not withstand strict scrutiny, the type of review applied in constitutional challenges to racial classifications. Intermediate scrutiny is applied in constitutional challenges to classifications based on gender. Rational basis review -- the most deferential -- is applied to pretty much everything else (like a state law regulating the licensing of dentists).
Right now, there is no agreement about what type of scrutiny should apply to constitutional challenges to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation. The Ninth Circuit has held that gay & lesbian people are a suspect category (like other minorities) entitled to heightened scrutiny, but other courts disagree. The interesting thing about yesterday's decision is that it found the relevant sections of DOMA unconstitutional without taking sides in this debate.
Well, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all!
I don't know why marriage is being legislated at all! Get government out of marriage!
Let's get the church out first
and go from there!
Separation of marriage and state
may be in principle a good idea. But right now, marriage is deeply entangled in tax, inheritance, probate, insurance, and child support law. How would you undo this?
Give me a break!
That's a red herring fallacy or a special pleading fallacy! Take your pick!
I think this is a fair question
Ron's not arguing morally or ethically here; he's got a very good and practical logistic point. If every marriage in the United States were no longer legally valid tomorrow, then a whole lot of folks would suddenly lose their health insurance, Social Security, bank accounts, visitation rights, the list goes on and on.
Marriage has been a legal construct more often than an emotional one in a whole lot of eras and locations. I'm totally fine with marriage conferring certain legal benefits on the involved parties. I'm also totally fine with religions deciding who and who cannot get married within that religion.
What I'm NOT fine with is somebody else's religion telling me who I can and can't marry. It takes precious little critical thinking to make Leviticus fall apart at the seams. (I'm also OK with cherry-picking which parts of one's Bible one follows [if one does]; I'm just not OK with being told that I have to accept someone else's picks.) If a legal right is conferred on one legally married couple, it should be conferred on every legally married couple*.
I also don't see how either red herring or special pleading apply to Ron's question. Please clarify?
(Yes, I have about a billion caveats concerning the definition of "legally married couple", and no, I don't think marriage is the only acceptable way to demonstrate commitment, but this comment is long enough already. Thank you.)
Well, the logistics will need to be hammered out...
but all these webs could be disentangled rather easily. But politicians, being as they can never say no, will probably just tangle the webs even further.
Oh?
Could they? Do tell us all how that could happen. Otherwise, your statement means absolutely nothing. File under: "easier said than done"
What?
I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand or clarify please?
We can start with tax
wiping out every single tax credit, subsidy and loophole. Yup, even the scared cows for children, charity and home ownership.
Can you believe I'm a progressive?
Keep the rates we have, and stop the giveaways and watch revenue skyrocket.
Taxes and children
For the most part, the "tax deduction" for children is not a loophole or sacred cow, but an exemption for being a person dependent on an income.
It is the same allowance you get for yourself and other members of your tax unit (and would include grandma or grandpa or, say, cousin Billy who is your legal ward because he was born with an extra chromosome, etc.).
Get rid of it
if one needs to go, they all need to go. Otherwise people start with other arguments to why their deduction or credit is worthier than yours, and then the lobbyists move in.
There's other means gov could support families without giving them cash incentives through the tax code.
I know that bugs the GOP'ers in the crowd, but there's my progressive shining through.
The complexity of the tax code is one of the major weapons used against taxes and government in general. It allows people to muddy the water and cause skirmishes, while using it to their advantage. We need to stop that, and not allow them that truthiness by making it more transparent, more fair, and more even footed.
Most people already see taxes as if you make X amount you pay Y; but it's not how it works. Let's make it work that way and cut the BS.
So ...
What you are saying is this: screw the poor massively.
Why? Because rich people have a lot of income after they pay for their expenses. Poorer people do not.
By getting rid of all personal exemptions, you are saying "screw the poor because I'm too math illiterate to figure it all out and understand it".
Won't bother me - my income is high enough that the exemptions are trivial and have little impact on my total tax bill. It would have meant more days without dinner when I was a kid, though.
I've never understood why people get so exercised over this.
I got "married" in a sacred ceremony in our church. That event has a set of consequences for me and my wife.
I got a political subdivision of the Commonwealth to issue a marriage license for me and my wife and to essentially proclaim us as "married". That has another set of consequences for me and my wife.
Those two sets of consequences are distinct. So far as I know, the only thing that they have in common is the day on which they attached.
I have yet to encounter anyone who can give me a reasonable explanation of why one has or should have anything to do with the other.
The two are, in fact, totally separate
Except -- Ministers can officiate over the creation of a legal (civil) marriage with the permission of the state. When doing so, they may be acting in a dual capacity -- but for legal purposes, the purely civil part is the one that counts.
Right, and...
it's important to point out that it does NOT work the other way (the state could not force a church to allow a civil servant to "marry" anyone in a church - just as it cannot force a church to marry gay people).
Probably redudant but I'll offer this view
Whenever anyone, civil or religious, officiates at a marriage, he or she is acting as a representative of the state. The religious elements added in a religious service are added for that context but have no bearing on the legal definition of the union as marriage.
I always thought this was an interesting place where state and religion intersected and obviously where church and state were not separate.
And there's the big question that muddies the waters:
Why are clergy authorized to solemnize and sign marriage certificates based solely on the fact that they are officers in private, and in many cases, discriminatory organizations? The clergy shouldn't be performing the function of the state just as the state shouldn't be performing the functions of religious organizations. Separate it as is done in many countries.
(Disclaimer: I am a Justice of the Peace authorized by the Commonwealth to solemnize marriages, however my thoughts on this matter long predate my commission as a JP.)
History
The meeting house also used to be the church.
We do a lot of things because of precedent and tradition. Doesn't mean we shouldn't ask if they should be changed, but we also should be weary of jettisoning them quickly too.
Two sides of marriage
There are two sides of marriage: marriage as the social contract typically recognized by religious institutions, and marriage as a legal entity. "Get government out of marriage," like "government should keep its hands off my Medicare," is a non-sequiter. Marriage has, in all modern times, been a legal institution governed by the state. You are required to have a marriage license, issued by the state, to be married. Go ask a priest to marry you and the first thing they will ask for is your marriage license. Although I agree that we should not have any laws that dictate how a church chooses to define its side of marriage, there are, and have always been, laws regarding the legal institution of marriage and those should not be allowed to discriminate based on things such as race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, with which people are born. At times, marriage laws have been used to do just that, and enforce bigotry (e.g. anti-misegination laws). Thankfully, the First Circuit has pushed the stake a little deeper into the heart of this latest incarnation of that tradition. Hopefully SCOTUS will finally kill it.
Use Different Words, Get Rid Of The Problem
If "marriage" was the word used for those people having a religious ceremony with no particular legal bearing, and all other official splicings came under the heading of "state-sanctioned partnership" (or almost any similar term not "marriage"), most of this problem would vaporize. The biggest fly in the pudding is that the same word is being used for two distinct acts that have little to do with each other aside from the government currently feeling a need to sanction both.
Note that I'm NOT asking for "marriage" to be limited to one man and one woman, while other arrangements of domesticity are relegated to a second-class status. What I'm saying is that "marriage" should be defined by religious or other non-governmental institutions, of whatever stripe and in whatever way they wish, and the word "marriage" should be stricken from all law and replaced with whatever wording works insofar as taxes, health benefits, visitation rights, or whatever else, pertains.
(In case anyone cares: I'm a Christian, and I believe that my marriage happened in my church. I consider it a lifetime agreement. Insofar as whatever the state decided was needed from us regarding paperwork, I complied, but I give not a single tiny shit concerning it. If it would benefit me or MY WIFE in any considerable way, I would get the public government-sanctioned divorce and then torch the marriage license in a heartbeat, with no more regret than I showed for the dirt on my car the last time I went to the car wash.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
It really is the reverse
The legal norm in the United States has typically been civil marriage, which is equally valid whether approved by any religious entity or not. (Especially true here in Massachusetts, where it was ONLY treated by the Puritans as a civil contract).
The Catholic Church (and Anglican/Episcopal Church) has a sacrament called "matrimony" which, in essence, recognizes the existence of a marriage under church law (a/k/a canon law). Marriage and matrimony overlap -- but are not the same.
words
Words and definitions are really the issue here.
2nd ammendment right to bear arms?
What are arms? guns, rocket launchers, grenades?
Where can I bear them? In public loaded? In my house or car unloaded with ammo next to them? On my person unloaded? Can I take them out of state? Carry them in public?
What is marriage? Can I marry another man? Woman? 2 women? 5 women? my dog? my family member? Can I marry something that isn't alive? Can I marry a group charity?
Is there really a right or wrong answer here?
Wisdom or not?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
~ Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
What is marriage? Can I marry
What is marriage? Can I marry another man? Woman? 2 women? 5 women? my dog? my family member? Can I marry something that isn't alive? Can I marry a group charity?
I disagree. I don't think it's a matter of definitions, just of substantive due process.
Let's say that marriage for legal purposes is the union of persons together into a family as equals, as opposed to a parent-child or similar relationship, or in-laws, and that all people have a right to marry. This is a bit rough, but adequate for now.
This is very expansive, however, and may include any number of things we don't want.
For example, we might say that we are limiting the exercise of this right to marriages where the parties consent to be married. This is an imposition on the right of people to marry without the consent of their spouse(s), but, due to the law of substantive due process, the state can nevertheless infringe on that right if it has a good enough reason, and if the infringement would operate in the interests of that reason, but would not go too far and impair the right unnecessarily. This seems to work for consent: it's very important that people not be forced to marry against their will or unbeknownst to them, and requiring that the parties all consent accomplishes that without going further. Consent is why there's an age limit (children can't consent) and why you can't marry a dog (ditto) but could marry outside your species if we met intelligent aliens (in fiction we at least can look at the examples of Superman and Lois Lane, and Mr. Spock's parents for interspecies marriages). If we ever get proper AI, perhaps you could marry a computer.
OTOH, there really is no sufficiently good reason to prohibit interracial marriage. It also violates equal protection, but that's just another problem with it.
There are a few other restrictions we currently have on marriage, but see if you can come up with good reasons why we might have them, and whether the restrictions are effective ways to respond to those reasons, whilst not going too far. I think you'll find that some of them are ok, but others are not.
No Argument On Civil Marriage Being The Norm
Since all religious marriages must be sanctioned by the state, but all state marriages need not be sanctioned by any religious body, it follows logically that civil marriage would be the norm. I'm just saying that a simple separation of terminology would probably be extremely helpful in cutting through the crap. Not calling every domestic partnership a "marriage" would go a long way towards leaving those without the brainpower to separate the two as distinct concepts from getting their panties in a twist.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
If other churches want a special term....
> Not calling every domestic partnership a "marriage" would go a
> long way towards leaving those without the brainpower to
> separate the two as distinct concepts from getting their
> panties in a twist.
...and they don't like "matrimony", then then THEY should make up/adopt a different word for the marriage-like relationship THEY approve of. The legally-recognized term for civil unions is the USA is "marriage".
Dutch Treat
I have friends who married in The Netherlands. They had a civil ceremony in the morning, followed by a church ceremony in the afternoon.
The civil ceremony was the one necessary for legal marriage. The religious ceremony was optional.
I also know a couple who have been married for years, but not legally so. They were joined in marriage in a synogogue by a Rabbi, but did not opt for the legal state marriage.
It's automatic
See Suldog's comments above - it's always been my understanding that if you are a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, monk or whatever authorized by the state to officiate at a marriage, if you perform the religious ceremony you are de facto performing the civil ceremony - you can't just do the religious ceremony.
The only way your Jewish friends are not married is if the the rabbi were not authorized by the state in the first place to perform a wedding ceremony - and my guess is that if s/he performs weddings as a regular part of his duties he would have a hard time finding business if he only did it for people that wanted the blessing of the faith and not the Gov.
Any legal eagles - BC or any other law school want to give us a ruling?
Officiant status not automatic
See the linked site for details:
http://massachusetts.usmarriagelaws.com/
Marriage here (and elsewhere in the USA) is actually a 2 part process. One must obtain the license (fulfilling all prerequisites) and then submit a document certifying that the ceremony actually took place. A cermony conducted when no license has first been obtained is not legally a marriage -- for all that there is an exchange of vows and a religious blessing.
Ahh yes
Thanks Michael
I believe now that I had this discussion once and they said that is indeed the case - but that you would be hard pressed to find a mainstream religious leader to perform the ceremony without the license (or at least a priest as I was raised Catholic-the bishops would probably want to know why you are marrying people who are not serious enough to tie up the legal end as well as the religious given their views on the sanctity of the act).
There's no common law marriage
or "de facto" marriage in Massachusetts. To be married, you need to have a license issued by the state and a ceremony performed by someone authorized by the state to marry people. That can be a priest or a rabbi or your Aunt Helen, but just the fact that a priest or rabbi performs a marriage ceremony (even if he's done hundreds of them) does not make a couple married under Massachusetts law. You need the state-issued marriage license and the signature of the state-authorized person for the marriage to be valid.
Because marriage is a civil matter, you are right -- even when a priest or rabbi officiates, they are performing a civil ceremony while also giving the church's blessing. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion about what marriage is and who owns it, despite the fact that opposite sex couples have been lawfully marrying outside the church in civil ceremonies for as long as there have been justices of the peace.
I Don't Give A Damn Who Changes Their Wording
The point is that if one or the other did so, then much of the confusion/anger/pigheadedness would be absent during future discussions.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
With all due respect....
...I think you are wrong. The angriest folks (including, but not limited to, bishops and fundamentalists) are not worried about the term used -- but about allowing any legally-recognized relationship other than the sort of "christian marriage" they approve of (viz. NC -- where voters just banned ANY type of legal recognition of ANY sort of domentic relationship other than conventional heterosexual unions).
Perhaps, Michael
But I think much of this would have flown under the radar of those folks had it not been framed as "marriage" by so many. The fundamentalists (and other such unbending types) heard that word and their ears perked up, on the alert concerning some sort of attack on their beliefs.
No way to prove that some past rancor could have been avoided, of course. We can only change terminology from this point and see what happens. And the likelihood of that is weak, I suppose.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
The very reasonable people
see that as a very reasonable solution. Unfortunately they're not the ones that are reasonably concerned to get off their butts and vote either way.
Likewise the mouth-breathers that you think this will educate and differentiate for, are not going to give one lick of care.
Again: this is about those damn homo's, not marriage. If it was about marriage, Newt would have been crucified by the christian base pushing these issues to the forefront.
Please See Above To Michael
n/t
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Nah
Then you'd get them yelping that the government no longer sanctions marriage but some PC crap fest.
Hint: The argument is not about the sacrament and sanctity of marriage. If it was, divorce and a treasure chest of others things would be more paramount.
It's really about the gays, and their evil, sinfulness. It's a proxy battle.
Likewise most hardline pro-lifers car very little about life. It's not about saving babies, but about punishing evil sinners (people not like them).
They want to cast that first stone, and hard.
@suldog,
I understand your wish to find a way to define our way out of this controversy. But we can't. Like every civil rights struggle that has brought about lasting change, this is a struggle for hearts and minds. Many of the people who opposing equal marriage really just oppose gay people and wish we would go away already. Changing the words we use won't change that.
Most importantly, though, gay & lesbian people are in this fight because we want to be recognized for our full humanity, not just our sexual orientation. We grew up in the same families, the same churches. the same schools and neighborhoods and popular culture as everyone else. We have the same feelings about marriage as everyone else. For some of us, it means a lot. For others, not so much. But the important thing is that civil marriage is institution firmly anchored in the civil and common law, and it is the hallmark of adulthood and the symbol of the full rights of citizenship of this country. I do not think that we should have to settle for some other word just so that the controversy goes away. With every passing year, more and more people come to support full marriage rights for my community. Let the controversy continue as long as it needs to until our marriages -- and our very existence -- is unremarkable.
Agreed, Basically
As you might have suspected, I believe in all citizens having an equal right to whatever constitutes marriage in our society. I was just theorizing that if either side in this argument were to have changed some wording along the way, the actual benefits of marrying (whatever they may be for each person) may not have been so long delayed for some or so indignantly fought against by others.
I understand wanting to be accepted on one's own terms, or on the same terms as others, so point taken.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Government has always been in marriage? So what?!
Times are changing and it's time to get government out of marriage!
Government favors marriage because government favors having kids
It's in the interest of society and therefore government to promote people having babies. I think that's why government favors marriage.
I don't know if it's a reason to ban gay marriage, that might be a greater evil, but I understand why the government wants more kids.
Simplistic Answers!
For complicated responses!
Next thing we know you will be telling us that RON PAUL IS THE ANSWER TO MARRIAGE!
Same level of cognitive effort involved.
Yes, Ron Paul wants the government out of marriage.
So do I. And there usually is a simple answer for everything. It's the human condition which makes problems.
Who cares if gay people want to marry?
This is one of the dumbest things to fight about, ever.
I guess that means
That modern-day Republicans are the dumbest politicians ever. Actually, if they keep beating the gay-marriage drum from now until November, they probably are the dumbest politicians ever. That ship has sailed.
Well,
gay people and their kids care, for one.
I think Boston_res meant what
I think Boston_res meant what is the big deal if they CAN get married. How does a gay marriage effect a straight marriage? Did "LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA" effect anyone already married that were of the same race?
It's actually part of the problem
If everyone who didn't care got off their but and voted their not caring, this argument would be gone.
Everyone that does care, specifically the religious fundamentalists and homophobic are furious, or scared shitless. They are almost all registered and they almost all go out and vote in their token social issues, usually upwards of 90% of their register.
So, if you want the insane dialog to stop and the issue to go away, go out and vote and get a few other to too.
Voting matters. Politicians have to be mindful of their constituents, and the more constituents they have to deal with the more moderate and popular their platforms have to be. Not voting allows the fringes to control the levers of power with very small, but very enthusiastic minorities.
Just look at the Teaparty in congress throwing red meat to the tiny group hat elected them. They're voting on yet another abortion bill today (after having a long vacation recess) as Europe collapse and the US economy staggers on.
You vote on THAT?
Don't get me wrong - I'm 110% behind the rights of gays to marry. The problem is there are too many other issues that are far more important when the vast majority of people consider how to cast their vote. The economy, war, education of our children and the environment are just a few that come to mind.
Quite honestly I think the courts are doing a fine job of ironing this out and they will likely determine that this is ultimately the law of the land so I'm very happily not too worried about it. Might not happen as fast as we'd like - but it will happen and we will be better for it when we move on to argue about things that are vastly more important than whether two people of the same sex can enter into a specialized legally binding contract which is really all marriage is outside of the religious aspects.
Not Zero Sum Stevil
I vote in every election, or every issue or choice in front of me. It's not that hard to do, and if everyone did it you tend to get a moderate distribution that aligns with public opinion.
IE, the more votes, the less crazy or radical get voted in. On both sides.
I'm not going to get up to vote specifically for or against the proposition in NC, but there's a litany of other things on the ballot too. And I'm going to vote period. And if people who thought it important to vote in 2008 showed up in 2012 in NC, guess what wouldn't have happened.
So, I'm actually arguing against going out to vote on your pet issues or only those issues you have a 100% grasp on.
Just get off you asses and vote 100% every time you have a chance to the best of your ability, as collectively it's much better than what any single vote is worth.
I get very angry when people are saying voting doesn't matter, and their vote doesn't count. It's that cynicism, infecting the system, that allows all the worst things to happen, that creates more cynicism and contempt for voting and representative government. And it's exactly what small minded, power hungry politicians want. It's more accountability and constituent pleasing and juggling they don't want to deal with.
Look at Menino's constituency, and who he caters to.
So do gay people whose
So do gay people whose partners are not American citizens and who therefore have to fly back and forth several times a year in order to be together. Oh yeah, that'd be me. This law is ridiculous and needs to be changed.
I drive a lot of lawyers around
and to a one, liberal or conservative, they love the idea of gay marriage. As one of them put is so succinctly; "I love gay marriage, as it also means gay divorces!".
Which is actually
hugely important. Any lawyer who practiced before equal marriage came to Massachusetts can tell you horror stories of what can happen when same sex couples who live as married are unable to marry and, when the relationship ends, cannot separate their lives according to the divorce laws. People lost their homes because the courts treated them as tenants or roommates rather than as partners or spouses. People lost their children because the courts recognized only biological parents and treated nonbiological parents (who had not co-adopted) as legal strangers to the children they helped birth and raise. People lost belongings, pets, you name it, and they had no recourse.
One of the most important things same sex couples gained with the right to marry is the right to divorce.
children are difficult, property not so much, pets in the middle
in the eyes of the law.
2 people can still own property together, they don't have to be married, related, or even friends.
And married people can own seperate things, and can sign things which say that.
All of that takes money
The package of rights and benefits under the law that married couples get just by being married would cost thousands of dollars to reconstruct piecemeal.
That's also an argument to not completely remove the state interest in marriage: many people cannot afford the legal efforts that it once took for gay couples to create that package of benefits, and, even if they could, it would seriously clog up the courts if you had to do these things every time you had a kid or bought a house or invested in a 401K, etc.
Interesting Side Argument? And A Solution?
Wouldn't having to jump through those hoops result in folks giving more serious consideration towards the commitment they were about to make? Might it not result in fewer divorces (and not just because of fewer marriages, but on a percentage basis due to having thought through so many pitfalls beforehand?)
Aside from that, though, I would think it fairly easy to have some sort of standardized partnership contract available which would cover most eventualities and make courtroom visits less likely. You (or anyone else here) know if such has been drawn up?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Read George Bernard Shaw's "Getting Married"...
... and his preface thereto (which is longer than the play).
Having represented many
same-sex couples trying to do just what you suggest, suldog, before equal marriage, I can tell you that no private contract can give a couple all of the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage. You can't contract your way out of the inheritance taxes that an unmarried surviving partner must pay. You can't privately agree that you will receive your partner's employer-provided health insurance (if the employer only provides it to married couples), or Social Security survivor benefits, or a federal pension. You can't contract with immigration officials to recognize your partnership so that your loved one is granted citizenship. You can't privately contract for your parental rights to be recognized by your kid's school or the hospital your kid ends up in during an emergency.
It's clear you've never to organize your life and try to take care of your loved ones without access to civil marriage. It's not so easy.
Thanks for pointing this out....
... now I don't have to try to do so.
Why should people have to re-invent a legal relationship type that already exists, just because some people disapprove of the partners' choice of each other as spouses.
Thanks, Michael
As I said to JPGal, I was just thinking out loud. I supposed that coming up with a contractual agreement covering most situations would be easier to do than changing the law. I see now that many laws now in place would actually make it more difficult. Thanks!
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Thanks
I'm just thinking out loud here, so I asked the question. You've given concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Thanks!
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Gay divorce and tattoo removal
I suggest investing in gay divorce and tattoo removal. They are THE growth industries of the future.
GO MASSACHUSETTS!!
GO MASSACHUSETTS!!