lady_kishiria | Cinchntouch, I expect a wedding invite!

Current Mood: happy

Cinchntouch, I expect a wedding invite!

The California Supreme Court just gave the green light to same-sex marriages in this state:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/

(Caveat: I do not believe in government overseeing marriages. Nonetheless, since the possibility of government pulling out of the marriage business seems highly unlikely, wrap this one up, I'll take it.)

Sometimes I'm asked why I am for same sex marriage in a state that has domestic partnerships. My answer is that if you have a MARRIAGE you know what to expect. Domestic partnerships are not the same thing as civil unions are not the same thing as marriage. If you are married you know you have to go to divorce court when the marriage ends. If you're in a domestic partnership you do as well, but it's not obvious from the name.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The whole damn thing should be filed under civil union. If you want to turn it into a marriage, that's between you and the church of your choice. It should have ZILCH to do with the legal system.

But that's still too much government in the relationship.

americanstd and I feel that this sort of partnership should be an extension of contract law, not family law. Were I not in the military, we would incorporate our family, then divorce and continue to live as we have for the past 10 years. We know one couple who are in the process of drawing up just such a contract.

What about kids, though? I mean, if a corporate entity decided to dissolve, what part of contract law would deal with kids?

I know next to nothing about law, but I thought a lot of the family law stuff was to deal with minors?

There's also a significant impact on pensions - private as well as military/government. Pension law currently requires a spouse to consent to give up their rights to their portion of the pension, and if the plan participant dies before commencing their benefit, the spouse is entitled to a benefit (similar to Social Security). Since the pension laws are federal though, even with states approving same-sex marriages, couples are still screwed.

So, how would contract law deal with that?

I'm just wondering how much law would have to be re-written to deal with incorporation rather than family law?

Unfortunately, the way the pension laws are written, if you're not married, your partner will most likely get screwed. IANAL, but AFAIK, there's no way that contract law *could* deal with ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) and PPA (Pension Protection Act) regulations to get around the marriage requirement.

So, how would contract law deal with that?

I'm just wondering how much law would have to be re-written to deal with incorporation rather than family law? Oy, my head hurts.

If there were no more marriages tomorrow many companies would have to switch to a system where you can name a beneficiary rather than the present system of automatic benefits for spouses.

I have to wonder, the couples who got married on that one weekend it was allowed in San Francisco, do they have to get married again? This may be a sinister plot on the part of the Tux rental stores. ::grin::

I imagine they have to get married again. That was on a city-only level, and the reason those licenses were invalid was that a city in this country does not have the authority to license marriages.

They would need to get married again since the weddings were declared null and void in the first place. In the eyes of the law the SF weddings never happened.

I offer my cake decorating services free to the first same-sex couple in California that requests a cake from me for their wedding (of course, they'll have to pay for my air fair and hotel).

I would think the wedding industry is cheering the decision.

My first two reactions:

1. "Yay, it's about time."

2. "Gee, I wonder if I'll get more clients for handfastings now."

Also:

Caveat: I do not believe in government overseeing marriages. Nonetheless, since the possibility of government pulling out of the marriage business seems highly unlikely, wrap this one up, I'll take it.

^This.

*nods*

You'll probably have fewer clients for handfastings. One thing my friend Jeems, who did same-sex weddings in Montreal, found out is that once same-sex couples could have legal weddings they stopped coming to him because they didn't have to.

Ironically, the hufe and I were married in the San Francsico ceremonies years ago and then later we got hitched in Canada. Last night we were discussing what we would do if the Supreme Court overturned the exisiting marriage ban - his repsonse was that he is bored of getting married. I have to admit I feel like I have been married more times than Liz Taylor, but in my case it is always with the same man.

Seriously though, right now we are debating how to proceed. My worst fear is that the supreme court's decision will galvinize right wing voters and we will see the proposed marriage ban pass in November. In my perfect world the Supreme Court would have made their decision after the election but......

So if I have a wedding you are more than invited. I am flattered that you mentioned me in your post too. That is really sweet.

I think the state ought to be involved in the wedding business. In my mind, and I guess this is where my conservative Catholic thing comes in, I think that the family is the basic building block of our society. I think it is the proving ground of everything. Given that criteria I think that the govt. should play (a minimal) role in giving considerations of families and providing legal frameworks for them. I see it as making a society in which it is easier to be good. Things such as tax structures, etc that take families into consideration have never bothered me. I do think there needs to be concessions made for people who are unable to opt into the "family" structure, but I think that it is wreckless to argue that the family is "just a voluntary committment" that should have no legal bearing (not that this is what you said, but I have heard this comment). As I like to say to the annoyance of many a Libertarian, If it ain't on a contract it don't exist. Ask any first wife about that.

I would also add that I think, at the same time, that marriage transcends a legal relationship and becomes a social one. I think there is a very strong resonance in being able to say, "this is my husband" or "this is my wife" that saying "this is my partner" doesn't have. I think that is worth more than all the legal rights and responsibilites put together. IMHO, I think the most important thing about being married is the level of committment involved, it literally is making a family, and I think that is precious. Now that gay folk can get hitched here (I wonder if my Canada wedding is recognized?) I can now lecture on the evils of premaritial sex. Hooray!!!!

To quote the poet Richard Armour,

"So leap with joy, be blithe and gay/Or weep my friends with sorrow/What California is today/The rest will be tomorrow."

Edited 2008-05-16 06:00 (UTC)

I remember a couple of years ago, driving north on the 101 towards San Francisco with my best friend James, who is coincidentally gay, and hearing the announcement on the radio that they had legalized gay marriages in San Francisco (that futile attempt by the mayor of SF). We screamed and squealed with delight. Only to hear in the weeks to come of all the legal bullshit and it all eventually being overturned. I hope this doesn't go the same way.

I doubt it. The San Francisco marriages were never legal because a city doesn't have the authority to hand out marriage licenses. A state does and now a state has.

As I reminded one person, California is the *second* state to have same-sex marriage. Massachussetts has had it for close to ten years.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Cinchntouch, I expect a wedding invite!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject