What Jill said.
Perhaps the time has come to unbundle the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. We can turn marriage per se into a purely ceremonial state, certified by religious or civil authorities as people choose. We already seem to be on the way to eliminating marital status as a factor in income taxes. Employees could simply designate anyone they wanted to receive their “family benefits” of health care, insurance, etc. Perhaps this would have the side benefit of changing insurance rates for families with or without children, which has long been unfair to people who choose not to procreate.
If the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of children (and I think it does), such protections and benefits should be directed specifically at parents (who may or may not be married), and not at married couples (who may or may not be parents).
Ok, now I’m stumped, I dont know who the hell is doing you peoples taxes, but I want them to do mine too. Every year I end up paying about $1000 more in taxes because my I’m married.
My God, what century are you living in? Here in the year 2000, the government has this saying - “liberty and justice for all.” Which part of “all” don’t you understand? Giving one person less rights than another is wrong and a detriment to society. To define “family” by this stilted and outdated doctrine is a slap in the face to adopted children, childless couples, and any two people who have ever loved each other enough to make a lifelong commitment to one another. When two people make a commitment, that defines a blood relation, and that ought to define a family.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Since marriage involves more than one person, your above argument is a red herring. But to address it anyway, the Hawaii supreme court ruled in Baher that denying a male the right to enter into a marital contract with a male while not denying a female that right (and vice versa) violated the state’s equal rights amendment. A later voter-approved constitutional amendment empowered the state legislature to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In light of this amendment, the court found the denial of the licenses to be constutitional but that the denial of any “marital right” to same-sex couples to be illegal discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.
Which is why the Canadian supreme court ruled that the definition of “spouse” must include same-sex spouses. The question is not does every man have the right to take a wife. The question is does every person have the right to marry the partner of his or her choice?
Gee, why would any gay people take offense at the implicaiton that a long-term committed relationship is somehow not a “familial” one?
You may certainly claim them as “family” and if you take legal steps you may legally claim one of them at a time as “spouse.”
Irrelevant in regards to friends or housemates, since a committed relationship is of a different scope and nature.
One would hope marriage don’t involve “blood” seeing as how that would be incest…
This is very deep, but unless you’re willing to deny legal recognition to mixed-sex marriages which can’t or won’t produce children, it’s irrelevant. The state does not require that marriages produce children and does not forcibly dissolve childless marriages. Having children is obviously irrelevant to marriage itself (something else noted by the Hawaii supreme court in Baher).
I would agree wholeheartedly, save the origin of sexual orientation should not matter. Whether being gay is a choice (which would necessitate being str8’s being a choice) should not be relevant to the protection of one’s rights. Religion is a choice. Political affiliation is a choice. Being a deadbeat dad or a rapist is a choice. None of these choices carry with it being legally barred from marrying.
Without wading into the issue of same-sex marriages (about which I have some opinions but very few facts), I’d like to address the issue of solemnization of marriages.
What it takes to enter into a legally binding marriage varies among the states. Historically (at least in merrie olde England, where U.S. legal tradition is derived from), there were two ways a couple could get married, either in a religious ceremony or under the common law. Religious marriages are what we think of today, going to a priest or minister and having him pronounce the couple husband and wife in accordance with the minister’s religious tradition.
Then there was common law marriage. Under English common law, if a man and woman lived together as husband and wife, holding themselves out to the public as such, then they would be considered to be such under the law, despite the fact that their marriage had not been solemnized in any ceremony or before any religious or civil official.
Currently in the U.S., all states a valid marriage to be perfomed in religious ceremony or in a ceremony before certain specified civil officials (judges, mayors, etc.). Some states also recognize common law marriages, though most U.S. jurisdictions prohibit it. (Some years ago, in a widely publicized case, the ex-girlfriend of actor William Hurt sued him for alimony, claiming they became husband and wife during that during the time they lived together in North Carolina, a state that recognizes common law marriages. The courts rejected her claims.) Note that when the media refers to someone as a “common law wife,” they are usually referring to a couple that is living together unmarried, rather than to an actual common law marriage, which is legally as valid and binding (if entered into in a jurisdiction where it is permitted) as a religious or civil ceremonial marriage.
Most state laws have specific legislation on who is entitled to perfom a civil marriage ceremony. In New York, for example, there is a statute that gives the right to marry couples to the New York City employees that perform marriages at City Hall (or actually the municipal office building across the street from City Hall), as well as a host of greater or lesser civil officials. (By the way, if a couple is married at sea, and the ship docks in the Port of New York, the captain is required to register the marriage in the New York City registry promptly upon landing.)
An interesting question that sometimes comes up, however, is who is entitled to perform religious ceremonial marriages. Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government is restricted from interfering with peoples’ religious observences. Most state statues are written and interpreted to permit marriages to be performed by almost any recognized religious leader (i.e. your rabbi, priest, minister, imam, etc. of choice). A number also specify that a marriage in a Quaker ceremony is also valid (because Quakers do not have religious leaders as such, though they do have wedding ceremonies in their congregations).
Under Constitutional law, almost any religious figure, no matter how crackpot he or she is perceived to be from the mainstream, should have the right to perform marriages. There is, however, an outer limit to this. There has been a litigation throughout the country over the Universal Life Church, an organization based in California, which believes everyone is or can be a minister, and will send anyone ministerial credentials for the payment of a small fee. Most jurisdictions have held that a Universal Life Church “minister” is not a valid minister under the law of the state and the Establisment Clause, and have found that marriages performed by such to be invalid.
Another area where this sometimes comes up is where an individual who held himself or herself out to be a minister, rabbi, etc. was not validly ordained and perfomed wedding ceremonies. I’ve seen divorce cases where this has come up because one of the spouses raises the defense that the religious leader that married the couple 35 years ago was not ordained, and therefore the marriage is invalid and the spouse is not required to pay alimony. Courts quite rightly tend to dismiss this nonsense, even where there is evidence of the invalidity of the ordiniation.
Anyway, in most instances, a marriage requires the couple to obtain a wedding license from a local official, and then have the marriage solemnized in a ceremony before some authorized religious or civil official.
Foolsguinea’s reply shows that foolsguinea has some incorrect notions of what ‘marriage’ is under the law. In light of this, and given the depth of the topic, let’s make clear the situation regarding marriage.
In a typical state, marriage is a union of man and woman, a union given legal status. A couple, one supposes, can consider themselves ‘married’ without the blessing of the state, but absent ‘common law marriage’ as an option, as far as the state is concerned, they either will be unmarried or violating the law. I will give Ohio’s statutes as an example:
Ohio Revised Code §3101.01:
Despite the apparent ability under this statute to marry persons of the same sex, at least one Ohio appellate court read the statute as requiring a man and a woman (Gajovski v. Gajovski, (1991) 81 Ohio App.3d 11, 12, 610 N.E.2d 431).
Ohio Revised Code §3101.05:
Note that the marriage must be preceded by issuance of a lisence. As will be seen, this is the method by which the state controls who marries.
Ohio Revised Code §3101.08:
Ohio Revised Code §3101.09:
Ohio Revised Code §3101.99
Now the scheme is clear. A man and a woman can marry (§3101.01). To marry, they must apply for, and obtain, a lisence (§§3101.05, 3101.09). Failure to do so makes their marriage invalid and they are subject to both a fine and imprisonment (§3101.99).
Thus, it is the actual performance of a ceremony between two people, the union of them in legal (but not necessarily religious) terms that is governed. You cannot be ‘married’ in Ohio without getting married; to do so is a violation of the law.
Common law marriage was outlawed in Ohio in 1991 (I think that is the year), see Ohio Revised Code §3105.12. The only valid common law marriages are those that occur originally in another state and are then brought to Ohio, and those in existence in Ohio prior to the date they were outlawed. Thus, gays cannot get around the statutes in Ohio by common law marriage.
Other states will vary as to the execution of the marriage issue, but in general, they all share the following: You have to get a lisence; marrying in violation of the statutory law of the state is a crime.
Sorry, I’ve been reading the threads of this discourse, and upon reading a previous comment, I just have to weigh in here…
Quote: “While there are people I love, hold as close as family, would die for; while I may have been physically intimate with some of them on various levels; while I may live with a person for years, even for the rest
of my life; none of that entitles me to claim any of them as ‘family’ or as ‘spouse’. Do I think that friends, housemates, and longtime companions deserve some socially recognized rights and considerations? Yes! (I would add, even in the absence of sexual relations.)
But ‘marriage’ isn’t just about physical intimacy; it’s about ‘blood.’ It’s about genes.”
Oh, really? As an adopted child, I cannot describe the effect statements like this can have. The two issues (gay marriage, adoption) may seem like apples and oranges to the uninitiated, but that is being deliberately obtuse, IMHO. When it comes to deciding what constitutes a family, let me assure you: it has very little to do with blood and genes, and everything to do with people who love each other and commit to build lives together.
The recent spate of court rulings deciding in favor of biological parents terrified me. I am old enough to not have to worry about being torn away from the only people I’d ever known as parents. But I realized that primary parents (versus bioparents) who adopt now might have a deep fear that their rights as parents will be pushed aside by a court one day in favor of a biomother’s mythologized “genetic connection.” No matter how much damage is done to the child’s psyche, and whether or not the primary parents are just bettr freakin’ parents. And this fear seems to be what motivates so many gay and lesbian couples to seek legal acknowledgement of their families! Good examples of gay and lesbian families being torn apart by “gene supremacy” rulings are Sharon Bottoms, whose grandmother sued and won custody of her child because she is a lesbian (later overturned, I think) and Sharon Kowalski, who was separated from her lover and primary caretaker when she was in a car accident because her family did not want her with her lesbian partner. And people don’t even think twice about breaking up these families!
Gay and lesbian marriage in 2000, civil or religious, is about more than tax writeoffs — it’s about protection. After all, when you take the genetics away, the only thing holding MY parents and I together is a couple of documents, and love. So what’s the difference here?
*violin music swirls to a crescendo - fade out * 
Don’t tell my mother I’m in advertising…she thinks I’m a piano player in a whorehouse.
This post is in response to the idea that property transfer is “too complicated” when you have polygamous marriages.
Joint property interests are well-understood for multiple parties in general - they may hold as tenants in common or as joint tenants, and rules are well-established for what happens when one dies, sells his share, or whatever. The differences between tenancy by the entirety (which is limited to married couples everywhere that it exists except Hawaii) and joint tenancy mostly have to do with what kind of unilateral acts can be taken to sever the tenancy, and whether debts incurred by one party can be levied against the joint property. In general, the rules about tenancy by the entirety are rather easily generalized to multiparty ownership - a death by one party leaves the property held by tenancy by the entirety by the survivors, a divorce converts the property to either a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common depending on the laws of the state, and no party can convey his share without the permission of the others.
Just a note on Hawaii - family members other than married couples (e.g., a parent and child) can register as “reciprocal beneficiaries” and hold property by tenancy by the entirety. I don’t know much about how this works, but it would be a good place to look to figure out what the effects of same-sex marriage and legal polygamy might be.
The real reason is - the insurance lobby.
Insurance industry execs are afraid of increasing health care claims due to hiv.
I have not heard this discussed as an option, either on the board or by others regarding the Vermont Court decision, but . . Is there anything preventing the Vermont Legislature (and/or the poulace of VT)from amending their state constitution to only recognize opposite sex marriages? If I understand correctly, the VT S.C. found that denial of same sex marriages violated the “Commonn Benefits Clause” of the state Constitution. Couldn’t that section be amended by whatever methods the state of Vermont requires? If it can, and that option is not being discussed, then we are making some progress.
p.s. I think I’m in love with Otto! I like a man with a big . . . brain! 
I haven’t taken the time to read all the posts, I’m just putting in my two cents worth.
First, as a male homosexual I am offended by the cartoon accompanying the column. It implies that in a same-sex couple, one takes the opposite gender role to mimic a heterosexual couple. I got news for ya! The enormous majority of m/m couples I know are two men who live and love together as two MEN. The ongoing fallacy that homosexuality=effeminate behavior is probably the biggest hurdle that male homosexuals have to overcome. Just because I prefer sex with men doesn’t meant that I sing show tunes, know the difference between taffeta and satin, and can’t understand sports. And I happen to know heterosexual men who DO sing show tunes, know the difference betweeen taffeta and satin, and have no interest in sports.
Second, on the topic of the purpose of marriage (someone said that it was for procreation), I really think the current “institution” of marriage is simply a religious ritual. And since nearly every government has been at some time controlled by religious factions (even our own), the legal definition of marriage has equalled the religious version. And since the predominant Christian religions have traditions of regarding homosexuality as sinful, the thought of a same-sex domestic partnership fills them with such dread that they have nightmares of the dissolution of the American family. Yeah, like me getting my partner’s name on my insurance policy is going to do that!
Third, the column makes and interesting point about two college roommates being able to go down to City Hall and get “married” since they have all the makings of a partnership: sharing residence, expenses, etc. That is certainly possible, but what happens when one wants to move on, and even get married (to someone of either gender)? Then you have the fun of a divorce to end the partnership. Certainly they could do that, but I doubt it. But that definitely would increase the lawyer population.
Otto is correct about marriage being traditionally required for property transfer. I don’t know how this was worked out in polygamous societies, but for the monogamous ones, the rule was set out that only the legitimate heirs of the property owner could inherit the property.
As far as procreation was concerned, people were shtupping long before the idea of marriage was around.
Doubt it. HIV is no worse than any other long-term debilitating and/or terminal disease, numbers-wise or money-wise. Besides, with so many companies either allowing or moving to allow same-sex beneficiaries, the institution of marriage is just another step; it’s not like we’re going from no domestic partners at all to suddenly having an influx of domestic partners, we’re just moving from some to more.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Yup, which is why the members of the VT legislature who are for the idea are trying to move quickly before someone who is against it moves to put it on a ballot initiative and have the people define it as with DOMA - this is essentially what happened in Hawaii. But the difference is that the VT court said it had to happen whether you called it marriage or domestic partnership, so I’m sensing that even if the people of VT say marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, the same benefits will be awarded under the term “domestic partnership.”
Personally, that’s the route I’m cheering for, because I feel that since “seperate but equal” was declared unconstitutional back when segregation was ended, I don’t see how such a system could survive a direct court challenge. Eventually, this is what will bring down DOMA and all its siblings.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Perhaps it would be worth your time to actually read what was posted; nothing worse than butting into the middle of a conversation and making a fool of yourself before you know the details of what’s being discussed, n’est pas? (Not saying you are, but I find it usually prevents such a terrible social faux pas from happening in the first place…)
Oh, please - it’s a cartoon about gay marriages. What, now satire has to be PC? Gimmie a break. (And before you get too riled, I’m a gay man, too, and I happen to like showtunes, thank you very much… 
)
This has been addressed in varying ways previously. (Here’s where it might be beneficial to go back and actually read what you’re posting about.)
That’s a good point, and since more and more marriages are legal contracts (i.e., pre-nuptual agreements, power of attorney, etc.), they are more and more difficult to dissolve; hopefully that would prevent such situations. Then again, there’s no predicting what drunken frat boys will do… :eek:
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
All right, my first gushing fanboy!
There is a grassroots organization in Vermont called “Take It To The People” which is advocating an amendment to the state constitution. The process in Vermont is difficult and time-consuming, which is part of the reason VT was seen as a good target state for legal action. Two successive sessions of the legislature have to approve the amendment and it then must be approved by a popular vote (unsure if simple majority or a supermajority is required). Since it’s doubtful this session of the legislature will pass any anti-SSM amendments, the absolute earliest such an amendment could be approved is November 2002. There have also been rumblings that the professional gay-haters, excuse me I mean the national Christian organizations, will try to establish operations in the state. Vermonters tend not to look kindly on outside interference with their citizen legislators so this isn’t expected to be that much of a threat.
Toby
Since lesbians are pretty much AIDS-free, and since the Supreme Court ruled just a few weeks ago that insurance companies could cap HIV and AIDS lifetime benefits at lower amounts than for other diseases, this is really not the reason. To the best of my knowledge, insurance companies haven’t taken a public position on same-sex marriage. The HMO for which I work is currently developing a domestic partner rider for its policies, both for employees and for companies who purchase their insurance from us.
Esprix
Humor is subjective. I too was somewhat annoyed by the cartoon. It shows, if nothing else, a real lack of imagination on Slug’s part that he wasn’t able to come up with an image consirting of anything but stereotypes. Which is not, IMHO, a PC issue.
Me too! Don’t you hate it when other gay people sneer at showtunes? Like just because they don’t like them there’s something wrong with those who do. (And I own 17 Judy Garland CDs, and I am not ashamed)
quote:
Second, on the topic of the purpose of marriage (someone said that it was for procreation), I really think the current “institution” of marriage is simply a religious ritual.
This has been addressed in varying ways previously. (Here’s where it might be beneficial to go back and actually read what you’re posting about.)
If they’re doing it as a goof, they probably won’t have drawn up pre-nups or POAs. Married status automatically confers property rights and the right to make certain decisions on behalf of the partner. The divorce process is largely the same whether there are specific provisions in addition to the regular property laws or not. But Cecil’s misgivings to the contrary, I really really don’t envision legions of frat boys, drunken or otherwise, descending on City Hall to get married to each other as a joke.