Easier for standing would be dying intestate. What about a company having to pay benefits to a surviving same-sex spouse?
Oh, yes, I meant the spouse inheriting without a will.
Wouldn’t that be some sort of ex post facto lawsuit? Before Obergefell and before DOMA fell, same-sex couples had it drummed into them constantly about making rock solid paperwork that would withstand such lawsuits from families (and about lots more than just estates, also access in hospitals and so on). After marriage was legal, some SSM couples might have gotten lazy about this, because conditions had changed and it wasn’t absolutely necessary. Are folks expecting to wave a magic wand and have 10+ years of history disappear?
Are you asking about reasonable people, or the substantial subset of Americans, many strongly religious, who do not fall into that category?
I’m reminded of the case of John Munroe Brazealle, in which the extended family of the deceased, one Elisha Brazealle, sued for control of his estate by arguing, in effect, that his son, John Munroe Brazealle, could not inherit it his father’s property despite his father’s will. Because John was born a slave, to a mother who was a slave, and the extended family argued that the elder Brazealle’s efforts to free his own son were invalid under Mississippi state law. Ergo, as a slave, he could not inherit anything. In effect, the extended argued that young John (still a minor child at the time of the proceedings) could not inherit the estate because he was part of the estate. His father’s own wishes (and basic human decency) be damned.
Want to guess how it turned out?
Wow, depressing. And pretty much this: I married an LGBT foreigner (therefore subhuman under MAGA law), and they could argue that we married in Canada to evade US federal law (since we married before 2015).
Anyway. I’m glad the court refused to hear this case, but I really don’t trust that my rights will outlast this administration.
Ugh, what an incredibly depressing story. It shows how bad laws prevent people from acting in decent ways.
I guess I mean, what is a reasonable expectation of what might be allowed to happen to existing marriages, even in today’s political situation, if Obergefell were reversed. Is there any kind of precedent for saying, in effect, “nope, you were never really married, supreme court decisions to the contrary notwithstanding.” I got married after DOMA was negated but before the Obergefell decision, and I’m not at all sure of the legal landscape between the two decisions.
I was worried but more optimistic than many here. Davis going to SCOTUS on her specific case and transparently asking “since I believe you’re all now on my side of politics, let’s also overturn a whole major precedent” is the kind of thing they will not bother with. They will want a case with real substance if they’re going to get into the issue again.
It’s the sort of thing we should be teaching in history class to middle schoolers (since the child in that case was about middle school aged himself, can’t argue it’s not age appropriate). Would be teaching if we were really teaching CRT to children. It also highlights just how deeply ingrained slavery was in the south. So much so that even people who wanted to exercise some basic measure of humanity (free their own child and the child’s mother from slavery) were prevented from doing so because the state had laws against doing any such thing outside of extraordinary circumstances (more extraordinary than raping a slave woman and having a child with her) and required the approval of the legislature in each instance.
Is there nothing you can do that would go beyond marriage to give your partner their rights? I’m thinking things like contracts and wills and such. It just seems to me like it would be prudent to have redundant safeguards just in case in your situation.
(Plus it’s not impossible that could wind up a situation for me as well in the future, as I am bi myself, albeit currently single again.)
The funny thing about rights is that as much as some insist that they are inherent, 99+% of what we use the word for is the demand that others respect those rights. IOW, we’re demanding concessions from others as our due. For example, what use would be a “right” to marry in the sense that you and yours could consider yourselves married all you want, and you couldn’t in any way be penalized for doing so; but at the same time absolutely no one else was obligated in any way to go along with that?
Oh, we do. I’m just imagining a hostile US court system. I don’t think my relatives are aware enough of my existence to think about the possibility of money, which is just as well!
The only scenario I could possibly imagine where a plaintiff would have any modicum of standing to sue to claim injury about same-sex marriage would be if some state began requiring religious institutions to perform same-sex weddings against their will - sort of a “You cannot discriminate in which kinds of weddings you perform” or if the whole wedding-cake thing were relitigated again. Even then, though, it would be weak.
Right, it’s not like straight people are being required to “get gay married.”
So many problems with this post. Shall we break them down?
I require no concessions from you or any other person. The entities that need to respect my right to equal treatment under the law (which is what this amounts to) are government and institutional entities, including the IRS (so we get the same tax treatment as other married couples) and hospitals (so I can’t be kept out of my husband’s hospital room).
You can refuse to recognize my marriage all you want, as long as you are not representing the government (or other institutional entity). On the other hand, I can refuse to grant any authority to your religion when you try to use it as a shield for your bigoted attempt to prevent us from getting married. See how that works?
“Signs point to no”
Can a private landlord refuse to rent to married gays? I’m presuming you would say “no”, which begs the question of just how far the boundaries of “institutional entity” extend. IOW to just about any damn thing gays resent suffering prejudice.
ETA:
Yeah, like it points out unwelcome truths you bitterly hate.
What?
Your tone is at least heavily implying, if not outright stating, that homosexuals should shut the fuck up and stop complaining because they deserve prejudice.