In October, my boyfriend and I plan on getting away for a few days, wandering up to (probably) the Oregon coast, staying in a random vacation home for a bit, and sometime during our stay there, having a wedding ceremony.
It will be a ceremony of our own design; we’re planning on exchanging rings, and vows. We want to express our lifelong commitment to each other. This is the best way we can come up with of doing so, without getting into very, very complex family issues.
When we get back, our legal status will not have changed one iota. We will need to have ironclad wills, we’ll have to have a lawyer advise us on how to buy our house jointly, we’ll have to have a lawyer advise us on durable power of attorney, and we’ll have to have lawyers involved in all sorts of minutiae that are, for heterosexuals, implicit in the marriage license. The license we can’t get. I still won’t be able to get health insurance coverage through my boyfriend’s provider, no matter how much I need it. And if anything happens to either of us, God forbid, we’ll have maybe a 50-50 shot of being able to get familial visitation rights in the hospital.
I’ll second what Gobear said, except to add that I want the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of the population. And I want those right and responsibilities equally protected throughout the US of A. I don’t want to worry about which state I’m in before I have sex with my partner.
IMHO, same-sex marriage or civil unions or Shirley are all part of the larger issue of equal protection or impartial administration of justice or whatever the hell they’re calling it this decade.
MrV, in the absence of someone who will give a formal recognition to your commitment, would you or your spouse-to-be object to my copying off the marriage blessing from our church’s liturgy in an attractive format and sending it to you as what small gift I can make to your vowtaking?
MrV…you simply must at least considerWeddingRock in the beautiful Patrick’s Point State Park in Northern California. Not quite Oregon, but darn close. Plus the rock has a fabulous history and tradition. It is considered a sacred location for weddings by the Yurok tribe of the area.
MrV…you simply must at least considerWeddingRock in the beautiful Patrick’s Point State Park in Northern California. Not quite Oregon, but darn close. Plus the rock has a fabulous history and tradition. It is considered a sacred location for weddings by the Yurok tribe of the area.
In Norway, the situation is pretty close to the description in the OP. Same-sex marriage is called “registered partnership”, and the only legal differences are very limited rights to adoption and to be married in a state church. (More info)
Over time, the language is changing here to fit reality. In everyday speech and the media it’s gradually becoming usual to use “marriage” and related words to describe both kinds of marriages. The main reason is probably that it’s easier to use familiar words - if I mention someone’s partner I might be describing a business relationship, but if I say “his husband” or “her wife” there’s no confusion. And if you’re a journalist writing about a celebrity who has a hard time after her divorce, you don’t want to ruin the story with dry legalese like “dissolving of a registered partnership”. To me it’s blindingly obvious that the finance minister is just as married to his husband as I am to mine. Describing only one of those unions as a marriage simply doesn’t make sense.
I honestly wanted to post something that contributed to this thread in some small way, but am now being assailed by thoughts of adopting matt_mcl, the idea of which strikes me as terrifically kinky…
The main two points of marriage, as I see it, are both the legal basis and all rights/benefits therein, plus a ceremony where you pledge yourself, in front of all those you deem to be important witnesses, to your chosen partner. The boi and I are planning two services, one for each point. This is primarily due to the fact he’s religious and we cannot currently encompass the two within one ceremony. I would hope that legal unions between same-sex couples will get to the point of those for different-sex couples - that you can have the legal service and either consider that your ‘marriage’ or have a seperate blessing if you so choose, or that you can have your legal and ceremonial needs met with the one service. However, until then, I’ll be happy with calling our ‘civil union’ our marriage. The legal bonds within are equally important to me, but not more so, than my standing in front of all those I love and respect taking him as my husband and offering myself as the same.
As a technical drafting point, I don’t think this is true. You could do it with one sentence: "In all laws of the United States, any and all references to “marriage” shall also be construed to include “Shirley.”
It would need to be tightened up, of course, but you get the gist of it. No need to rewrite everything.
Thought of this after I hit “submit”: The tax code does this, for example. It says that “state” includes not only the states, but also DC, Puerto Rico and all federal territories.
I hope I have a handle on this because I’m testifying before the House of Commons Subcommittee on Same-Sex Unions on Tuesday. Basically, to me, Shirley is better than the status quo, but not as good as complete equality. Nevertheless, I’ll take whatever I can get.
I am worried, however, that certain specific things do in fact accrue to the word “marriage.” I understand, for example, that certain matters regarding immigration law and the like are tied to the word “marriage.” At the least, having a certificate that said “marriage” would give us more leverage if we had to fight it out in court somewhere.
I’m sure as a practical, day-to-day matter, Shirley would resolve the majority of issues. But there would still be that little reminder that we’re not quite equal.
Like matt, the thing that worries me about domestic partnerships or civil unions or Shirleys or Dorothys is portability. Currently, even gay marriages performed in countries where they are legal are portable to the US. Vermont’s civil unions aren’t portable to any other state (I believe). And as long as DOMA is still in force, it doesn’t matter which state is the first to offer full marriage for same-sex couples; portability isn’t enforced.
JayJay, within the U.S., a Vermont civil union is arguably portable to any other state, which would be constrained to recognize it by the principle of comity and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. E.g., Barb and I did not have to prove to North Carolina that we had been married in New York 23 years before when we took up residence here, nor did we have to remarry under NC law – it was assumed that the marriage we claimed to have contracted in NY was valid here as well. Similarly, your Uncle Frank’s will probated in Pennsylvania leaving you his interest in an Arizona cobalt mine will be upheld by the Arizona courts, on the basis that a court of competent jurisdiction has transferred ownership from his estate to you and they’re not going to reinvent the wheel to make sure that all the provisions of their estate law were followed.
By the same token, the act of a Vermont town clerk in performing a civil union ceremony is theoretically binding in every state in the union.
“Arguably” is there because of D.O.M.A. and its authorization to states to restrict marriages to one man and one woman and refuse recognition to any other form of marriage. Note that for purposes of this interpretation, civil unions are regarded as equivalent to marriage, on the duck principle (it walks like one, it quacks like one…).
Also remember that God Himself in all His omniscience has no clue what a given judge will do when faced with a controversial marriage-type case.
Now, the Full Faith and Credit Clause places an affirmative duty on the states to recognize the validity of another state’s legal actions insofar as such actions govern matters brought before that state’s courts or officials. Such a duty, mandated by the Constitution, opponents of DOMA argue, cannot be voided by an act of Congress. However, Congress is to “make a uniform rule how such acts shall be proven, and their effect” – and that final phrase gives DOMA supporters an out.
If you think Bowers v. Hardwick, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence & Garner v. Texas were hot-button issues, wait until a civil-union-in-another-state case hits SCOTUS – all Hell will break loose!
That’d be very generous, and very much appreciated. But keep in mind, we’re not doing the nuptials thing until October, so no deadline pressure.
That’s a wonderful thought. Thanks.
Oh, and honeydewgrrl, that looks like a lovely spot, but I don’t want to start off our marriage by plunging off a giant rock into the pounding surf below. But I’ll run it by the boyfriend anyway.
And Dewey, I hadn’t considered that. Like I said, as long as the rights are the same, Shirley it is.
Oh, BTW, for an update on current status in Canada:
Owing to the M. v. H. decision, same-sex pairs have the same rights to common-law marriages as opposite-sex pairs (i.e. if you fulfill the same conditions - i.e. living together and having sex for a particular length of time - you and your boy are as common-law married as you and your girl.)
Quebec and Nova Scotia, in addition, offer civil unions (goin’ down to the courthouse, as it were). The Quebec version offers all of the rights of marriage, with some provisos relating to how it may be dissolved, adoption, et.seq. Don’t know about Nova Scotia.
Court cases in Quebec and Ontario putatively require the federal government to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples by 2004. (Civil status is a provincial affair, but the definition of marriage is federal.) The Commons Committee I’ll be testifying before tomorrow is looking at the fedgov’s options. However, if they fail to change the definition by the deadline, the courts may do it for them.
Oh, something you may have been wondering about: In Canada, certain ministers of religion are competent to perform civil marriages; i.e. the religious marriage is considered equivalent to the civil marriages. There seemed to be a notion abroad that bringing in same-sex marriage would force these ministers to perform same-sex marriages despite the teachings of their church. This isn’t the case; ministers are exempted from solemnizing marriages contrary to their religious beliefs, as for example in the case of a cross-religion marriage which violates one of the religions. So there’s no reason to believe they would have to perform same-sex marriages either. (The question remains why you would want to have a church wedding under those circumstances - I know I wouldn’t…)
And this is why and how I believe civil unions will eventually be recognized countrywide, and DOMA and its little siblings will all be found unconstitutional (never mind the entire “separate but equal” legalities) - but that’s another thread entirely.
Me, I’ll be happy with Shirleys become a reality; HOWEVER, I will still feel like a second-class citizen - “separate but equal,” marriage being the only “real” relationship, etc. Granted most of that will be society’s or an individual’s attitudes towards me, but that’s why I will dissent from the popular “I don’t care what it’s called” camp and say that the only thing that will work for me, personally, is the institution of marriage open to all - period.
(Oh, and jkusters, unfortunately putting my name in your sig doesn’t show up on searches - so nyeh! )
“Shirley” will do for those that want 'er, but if I could wave my magic wand…
I’d remove the word “marriage” from the law books.
It seems to me the M word is inextricably entangled with sectarian religion. And that’s fine–one’s faith should be able to determine the shape of one’s committed relationships.
Let the law recognize “enduring personal partnerships” (or some similar terminology) however entered into, whether by religious marriage or some other “definite and demonstrable affirmation of contract.”
In other words, not “marriage OR shirley” but “shirley for everyone.”
Ain’t he romantic, folks?
)