A while back (1997) a study was done that found 1049 specific legal benefits of marraige. The pdf is here.
Are you sure that being fired for cause is enough reason to be denied unemployment benefits, and that being fired because of your sexual orientation is considered “fired for cause”? I ask because in NY, only firing for misconduct is a reason for the denial of unemployment. I once received unemployment after being fired for being uanble to do the job well enough- fired for cause ,if you ask me- but received unemployment because it wasn’t misconduct.
Point taken.
I’d like a bit more info before taking that point, Skammer. Are you saying that a male-female common law couple is never treated the same way as a married couple? For example, are male-female common law couples barred from adopting children jointly? if one of them has a child from a previous relationship, is the other one barred from adopting the step-child? Are common law opposite sex couples never permitted to file jointly for tax purposes? And so on with each of the examples given so far.
In other words, is marriage the only pairing that gets recognition by the law in all states and federally, or does the law sometimes treat opposite-sex common law couples in the same way as married couples?
There are only a handful of common-law states, and in those states there is no differentiation between a couple married under the terms of the state’s marriage statutes and those married under the common law. Once a couple has achieved spousal status under the common law, they are afforded the same rights and privileges as any other married couple, and must dissolve their marriage under the divorce laws should it come to that.
TIME has a column in this week’s issue, discussing some of the rights that married couples get under federal law: 1,138 Reasons Marriage is Cool.
Interestingly, one of the legal rights in question is the Secret Service protection for Vice President Cheney’s family:
One must also fill out extensive application documents and in Florida, the question of sexual preference is (last I knew) directly asked. Potential adoptive parents must undergo something called a home study, in which the household is visited and judged by a trained social worker, and they must provide references.
So as a gay person seeking to adopt in Florida, you have to lie on your application documents (and probably again in person at some point), must be sure that there is no visible evidence of your sexuality in your home and you must be sure that all of your references are aware that they must avoid making the slightest allusion to your sexuality in their statements. If you live with your partner, the stakes are even higher, as you must do everything you can to make it seem that you’re mere housemates and both of you come under scrutiny. That’s a lot to withstand.
Well, yes. But heterosexual couple have the option of getting married. Homosexuals are required, by law, to remain unmarried couples. And some of these things (see adoption) are specifically about sexual orientation anyway.
Gotta pick nits again – there’s no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. Just not to each other. Even that’s not true; two homosexuals can marry if they’re opposite gender.
I don’t have the right to marry someone my own gender. So we’re equal.
And, yeah, if it were legal I may have done back when I was in the Army.
And I do realize I used the wrong word several times above. Sex. Not gender. I meant *sex[/]i.
And by nitpicking, I mean the actual terminology. I’m all for civil unions and that gays shouldn’t be denied certain rights. But if you’re going to fight for something, choose the words properly. The “marriage” issue isn’t an equal rights issue. All of the goodies associated with being married is the real “equal rights” issue. I’ll back you all on those rights.
You really are nitpicking - that goes without saying.
You really are nitpicking - that goes without saying.
In some ways I don’t think this is a nitpick at all, I have heard many time that homosexuals are denied 1000+ rights that hetrosexuals get, but it is not true, the individual chooses who to marry, and the laws are (or should be) known ahead of time.
Yeah, someone should have warned those homosexuals about that. Cos then they would just go and find women.
Sorry for debating.
One big one that has been implicitly stated, but I feel is worth explicitly mentioning, is the nature of real estate ownership - married couples can by a place as “tenants by the entirety,” with ownership continuing with one spouse if the other dies without any red tape.
I’d imagine that gay couple can get around this If both partners make out wills, each making the other their heir.
That’s assuming that there are no other potential heirs who challenge the will claiming “undue influence.”
She may have run into this problem in any state, due to this pesky little item known as the First Amendment.
Christian schools typically have wide latitude over their hiring and firing, due to their religious nature.
[sidebar] Otto, could you point me to any SCOTUS cases on this issue? it came up in a class I taught last week but I didn’t have any quick reference.
Thanks.