# Hypothetical legal question: suppose they legalize gay marriage ... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499 "2003-05-30T12:38:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SnoopyFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@SnoopyFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnoopyFan)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/21 "2003-06-01T01:58:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*As for issues of inheritence, power of attorney, etc. how hard is it currently to designate another person as having all the rights equivalent to a spouse? Seems to me an “equivalent to marriage” contract wouldn’t be that hard to work out. \*\* As always, it depends on what state you’re in and what the inheritance laws are. AFAIK (IANAL), you can give power of attorney to anyone you want. As far as inheritance, it’s not that easy. Let’s say our friend **Jeeves** has a kid from a previous relationship. And let’s say that this kid turns out to be completely rotten and undeserving of Jeeves’ vast estate when he dies. If Jeeves dies without a will (and dies w/o being legally married to his boyfriend), Jeeves’ kid would get all the money. Never mind that Jeeves has lived with his man for 25 years and hasn’t spoken to his kid in 10. The only way Jeeves’ man is gonna get anything is if Jeeves has a will and specifically states in his will “I want all my stuff to go to my partner” – and even then, some states won’t let you completely cut your kid out of your will. Some will make you give a certain percentage/amount. (Here in WV I think it’s like, $100.) However, if Jeeves were married to a woman and died without a will, in most states everything would automatically go to his wife, kids or not. (The kids couldn’t get their hands on it till the wife died.) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/22 "2003-06-01T22:56:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Susma Sio Rep** _ > > The way I know about the policy of the law in Western Christianized society, it is universally required that marriage be between a man and a woman; so that if either party is not a functionally complete man or a complete woman (sexually operative), the marriage is not valid; meaning to say no marriage actually is realized as a juridical entity, notwithstanding the officiation of the minister and the consent of the parties; and either party can ask the appropriate court to declare the marriage not to have ever been realized. I presume that the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Vermont are no longer part of Western society, then? Also, what you’ve defined is, for the most part, a _voidable_ marriage rather than a _void_ one. The former category is one for which an annulment can be sought and received; the latter is, on discovery, no marriage at all. E.g., if a disabled veteran who has lost use of his private parts chooses to marry a woman who is aware of his disability, she may at a later date choose to seek the voiding of the marriage on the basis that she was not aware of how much she would miss having sex, but until and unless she does so, they have a valid marriage that may last for decades. A man ostensibly marrying his grandmother or sister, on the other hand, is a void marriage – the courts will refuse to take legal recognition that it ever happened. > [@](#): > > The ideology of the law is that marriage is for the procreation of children and for the orderly use of human sexuality. If babies are not possible, then orderly use of sex is the other necessary purpose of marriage. And the orderly use of sex is between a man and a woman, in accordance with the traditional convention of Western Christian society. Marriage has many other functions beyond procreation and the regulation of sex, and the courts have on occasion taken judicial cognizance of this. I would like to see a cite for that comment. > [@](#): > > So, there has got to be a change in the law to the effect that not only a man and a woman but also two of the same sex can contract a valid marriage. Only in places that have defined a valid marriage as being only between a man and a woman (with the obvious questions relating to transsexuals thrown in for good measure). > [@](#): > > Why would two of the same sex want to have a marriage when they can live together and have sex the ways they can manage as best as they can be resourceful and skillful? I dunno. Why would you want to post on this message board when you could sit home and masturbate instead? Maybe because there’s more to life than sex? Because when you love someone, you want to provide for them, ensure that nothing but death will separate you, have legal and social approval on the union that you and your beloved feel between yourselves? > [@](#): > > Such a law can only be enacted when society is advanced sufficiently in its liberal attitude, to accept the idea that all the rights and obligations can also be contracted and enforced by law should two persons of the same sex want to have a legally constituted relationship analogous to conventional marriage, even though no possibility of children ever would be possible in such a relationship. First point: adoption. Second point: foster parenting. Third point: many heteromarriages are childless. And I Pitted the last person to insult my (childless) marriage as “not socially functional” – I’m restraining myself from repeating that. > [@](#): > > If you ask me, I say I am in favor of such a law. In the absence of such a law, then people will just have to accept same sex partners living in as in a common law marriage, i.e., cohabitation without the protection and supervision of the law. And should the two partners have troubles between themselves, they cannot look to the law for redress in the manner of spouses in a conventional marriage legally entered into by the partners. You may have heard of the recent SCOTUS case of Lawrence v. Texas? In about 19 states, such unions are not only not equivalent to a common law marriage; they’re legally proscribed and those who enter into them are open to conviction as felons. Besides which, I’m not sure how many states still recognize “common law marriages” but it would be my guess that no more than 15 do. In addition to all this, I need to add to **Bryan Ekers** ’s point the question of “public policy” – wills can be challenged, particularly by blood relatives, and will often be decided on the basis of a nebulous concept called “public policy” – which means that if your state legislature disapproves of your sexuality or whatever has motivated you to make a will leaving all or most of your estate to someone not a relative by blood or a legally recognized marriage, your will stands about the chance of survival of a dry-ice snowball on Venus. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/23 "2003-06-01T23:35:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*I dunno. Why would you want to post on this message board when you could sit home and masturbate instead? > \*\* I used to ask myself that same question. Then, I had an epiphany. If I really applied myself, if I was willing to give 110%, if I pushed myself to my very limits, I could do both. There were days I thought my goal made Don Quixote’s dreams looks positively practical in comparison. I’ll never forget the day I fractured both wrists. It was so tempting to just quit. But, I stuck with it. Then came the day I climbed to the top of my Everest. The view is spectacular, and I just feel so fulfilled. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/24 "2003-06-02T19:20:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Susma Rio Sep** _ > > The way I know about the policy of the law in Western Christianized society, it is universally required that marriage be between a man and a woman… Did you even read the originating post of this thread? > [@](#): > > Let’s pretend that “they” legalize gay marriage in the US. As in, gay people can actually marry and have all the rights that come with it. If this weren’t GD I’d have some choice things to say, but I’ll leave it at :rolleyes: . Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/25 "2003-06-04T17:00:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by SnoopyFan \* > \*\* > Let’s pretend that “they” legalize gay marriage in the US. As in, gay people can actually marry and have all the rights that come with it._\* “They” can’t legalize any form of marriage “in the US”. Each individual state is in charge of what constitutes a marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Tiram](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Tiram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tiram)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/26 "2003-06-04T20:14:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > I presume that the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Vermont are no longer part of Western society, then? Or Sweden? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/27 "2003-06-04T21:25:03Z")
When I testified in front of the House of Commons Justice Committee regarding same-sex marriage, one of the questions that kept coming up was whether or not a minister would have to marry a same-sex pair against his or her religious conscience. Answer: no. Even though divorced people are permitted to marry under Canadian law, a Catholic clergyman does not have to marry divorced people since that contravenes his teachings. There is no reason to suppose it would be any different for gay people. [rant] Essentially, in other words, the people who kept bringing up the argument were bitching that their clergy were having their religious freedom infringed by what _other_ people in _other_ religions were doing with their _own_ lives in _other_ churches and city halls. (The extent to which _we_ are having our religious freedom infringed by not having _our_ religions’ marriages recognized by the state the same as theirs’ is, of course, apparently irrelevant.) [/rant] ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/28 "2003-06-04T21:31:25Z")
Remind me to never piss you off, matt. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/29 "2003-06-05T15:16:42Z")
Okay 🙂 If you’re curious, my testimony is finally online! Check it out here: [Minutes of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights - Travelling hearings on same-sex marriage](http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/JUSTEV39-E.HTM#Int-524586) ---
**Author:** ![Potter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Potter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Potter)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/30 "2003-06-05T17:29:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > **If you’re curious, my testimony is finally online!** In which, I’d just like to point out, I get several mentions 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/31 "2003-06-05T23:04:39Z")
::: applauds **matt\_mcl** ::: ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/32 "2003-06-06T02:06:41Z")
> [@](#): > > ``` > My fiancé and I do not intend to represent all 6 billion people on earth; we just want to get married. We just want to have a household. We just want to be the two of us. We don't want to be the 6 billion people in the world. What our household consists of is not meant to bear any relation to the composition of the world. It's a complete non sequitur, bearing no resemblance to what this is about. It is specious in its intent, because the number of homosexual marriages is not going to reduce the number of heterosexual marriages. Basically it has nothing to do with what this committee is talking about. > > ``` **matt** , that’s beautiful! Good luck to you and **Potter**. (Although you guys are really making my bad teeth even worse!) 😛 ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/33 "2003-06-06T03:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*::: applauds **matt\_mcl** ::: \*\* ::seconds that applauding:: ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499/34 "2003-06-06T08:22:55Z")
_bows_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-legal-question-suppose-they-legalize-gay-marriage/178499.md?page=1)