[QUOTE=Antinor01]
Many states have changed their constitution to say that they will not recognize same sex married or civilly unioned couples.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it is an open legal question if that is allowed under the US Constitution.
The “full faith and credit” requires states to recognize the legal actions of other states. And this is used in other marriage cases. The minimum age for marriage in West Virginia is younger than here in Minnesota, but if a teen-age couple marries in WV and moves here, their marriage is recognized. Even foreign polygamous marriages are treated as married here; that’s pretty common down at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester.
Eventually, this will end up in front of the US Supreme Court to decide. Gay people would prefer to wait, since the current Court would likely give a Roger Taney-like decision (“negroes have no rights”).
There is a word in the English language for the contracting of a monogamous relationship between two people who agree to live together as spouses for the rest of their lives. That word is “marriage.”
If it’s performed by a Mayor, JP or whatever, it’s a “civil marriage” – if by a clergyperson, it’s a “church marriage.” And that’s only relevant to the wedding at which the marriage is created.
Note: the following is an attempt to explain a viewpoint not shared by the author, for clarification purposes: For many conservative people, particularly of a religious nature, however, the idea of a “gay marriage” is despicable. First, not having known a loving, committed gay couple, they do not conceive of such a relationship when they hear the term, but focus on the sexual aspect. Secondly, for the religious types, there’s a sense that God created and ordained marriage, and that He did so for a specific combination: one man and one woman. To call gay monogamous relationships “marriages” is for them blasphemy of a divinely sanctified institution.
Now, to carry a religious concept over into civil law is obviously totally unjustified. But we are talking here of people’s emotional reactions – and ones founded in their religious beliefs. This is a big hurdle for most of them.
So, is there any requirement that the couple being “civil unioned” actually consummate the union? The reason I ask is that in Canada, a couple of divorced guys were bitching that they no longer got the tax breaks for being married, then realized that Canada’s gay marriage law had no requirement for them to consummate the thing, and decided to get hitched as a tax dodge. I’m thinking one way to get a real gay marriage law enacted is for us straights to “civil union” one another for the tax benefits.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
So, is there any requirement that the couple being “civil unioned” actually consummate the union?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe there is any such legal requirement, for either civil unions or marriages.
I have friends where the husband is disabled and in a wheelchair, and physically not capable of ‘consummating’ the marriage in the usual way. But they had no problem getting a marriage license, nor in having their marriage recognized by the state & federal government in the years since then.
Technically, I think Catholic Canon law requires that people getting married be able to physically consummate the marriage. But this is regularly ignored by everyone in the church.
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
I don’t believe there is any such legal requirement, for either civil unions or marriages…
[/QUOTE]
Non-consumation is only grounds for nullity of marriage if one spouse petions the court for an annulment. No third party can. In no state is it illegal for a man and a women to enter into a platonic marriage simply for the tax breaks and health insurance (immigration is another story).
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
But this is just not true!
Gay couples are still discriminated against in many of these issues. Some examples:
if one of a married couple dies, their estate can pass to the other spouse without paying estate tax. Not true for gay couples, civil-unioned or not.
Gay couples don’t receive the pension benefits or Social Security benefits of their deceased partner like married spouses do.
If an employer provides health care coverage to both married and gay couples, the gay couple has to declare the cost of the coverage as additional income, the married couple doesn’t.
Even stuff as mundane as membership in a golf club or rental library: married couples can buy a family membership, gay couples, even if civil-unioned, have to spend more to each buy a separate individual membership.
And, of course, any rights the civil-unioned gay couple might have in their own state may not be recognized when they happen to be traveling in a ‘red state’. If a medical emergency takes one of them to a hospital, the other may not be recognized as a spouse, and allowed to visit or make medical decisions, regardless of any civil-union paperwork they may have with them. (In a recent case, one half of a gay couple died alone in a hospital room, while the hospital kept his partner locked out, unable to see him or even be informed of his condition. Despite having copies of all the legal documents with, and even phoned permission from the blood relatives, who were enroute to the hospital.)
All these things are provided automatically by that one little word - “marriage”.
[/QUOTE]
I am a little late replying to this, but:
Maybe you are correct, but according to the article **Eve ** quoted, you appear to be thankfully wrong.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I am a little late replying to this, but:
Maybe you are correct, but according to the article **Eve ** quoted, you appear to be thankfully wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Alas, I think I am correct.
Here’s a link to an article from the Associate Press titled “Despite Court Ruling, NJ Civil Unions Won’t Provide All the Benefits Of Marriage”. Logo TV
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Not that it matters (yay Jersey!) but allow me to point out this is pretty crappy statute drafting. It says you must satisfy all the criteria (A+B+C) but then (B) says you must be excluded from the marriage laws of any state. This means that if and when any state allows same-sex marriage, people in NJ will not be allowed civil unions (because they will no longer be able to fulfill (B)). This is obviously a very close and narrow reading of the statute, and one that Jersey may not choose to give it in that happy event, but technically statutes are to be narrowly read and strictly constructed. I think the law would have been better to just estalish NJ provisions without regard to what other states may do.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, I read it just the opposite way.
“…of this state OR any other state…”
So long as there is one state where you’re not allowed to “marry”*, you can get civilunionized in Jersey.
Coming from a language where a “civil union” is called a “civil marriage”, I always get a bit eye-crossed about these terms.
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
Alas, I think I am correct.
Here’s a link to an article from the Associate Press titled “Despite Court Ruling, NJ Civil Unions Won’t Provide All the Benefits Of Marriage”. Logo TV
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, from your link, it looks like you are correct. This is a shame and it is more then just semantics. Still, it is a good step forward and hopefully one that leads to the next step quicker than it took to get to this one.
Jim {That was a convoluted way to say I am wrong and you are right, wasn’t it?}
