Bumped.
Some interesting discussion towards the end of this Ohio Lawyer essay on issues still outstanding here after the big SSM decision: https://www.ohiobar.org/NewsAndPublications/OhioLawyer/Pages/Life-after-love-wins-What-the-Obergefell-decision-means-for-Ohio.aspx
One of my law school classmates practices family law and specializes in same-sex adoptions and divorces. We’ve had SSM in Florida since a little before Obergefell (by a federal trial court order) but there hasn’t been much more progress. She said she has a list of 141 unanswered questions or law (mostly Florida) that have popped up in her same sex divorce cases over the last year.
I saw an interesting article – not so interesting that I remember where – about loss of consortium in same-sex relationships. It will be an easier question within a decade (though there are still people of all sexual orientations who want legal recognition for their relationships while choosing not to avail themselves of the mechanism established for that purpose) but it’s still tricky in a lot of places, along the lines of the duration question for divorces in the article E’s H posted.
I have no fuckin clue what you’re trying to say, or why for that matter.
Loss of consortium is a civil claim that a spouse can make in parallel with a partner’s personal injury action.
We’ve had same sex marriage in Canada for a decade. Some of the laws that discriminated against same sex partners were dealt with prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, and others were dealt with following same sex marriage becoming legal. When provinces (our equivalent of states) did not voluntarily fix discriminatory laws, the courts did. For the most part, the issues were pretty much cleaned up within a couple of years of the Supreme Court of Canada’s same sex marriage decision prohibiting discrimination based on sex.
One matter that only took a while to deal with was how to handle same sex foreigners who got married here but were not able to get divorced in their non-Canadian jurisdiction because in the eyes of their home authorities they were not legally married. Eventually, Canada got around to creating a new law that permits foreigners who got married here to get divorced here even if they do not meet the residency requirement of one of then having lived continuously for a year prior to the divorce application in the province granting the divorce.
The bottom line is that with a growing body of legislation a landmark decision from the highest court in the land being based on prohibition of discrimination based on sex (in that case, same sex marriage), it was futile to fight for discrimination based on sex, so for the most part the transition has gone smoothly.
And some provinces took steps to implement equality before the first same-sex marriage case was even decided. For example, Saskatchewan in 2001 amended all of its laws that dealt with spousal relationships to put opposite-sex married couples, opposite-sex common law couples, and same-sex common law couples on a position of equality. The implementation of same-sex marriage by the courts and the federal government just added marriage to the list of things available to same-sex couples in Saskatchewan, but didn’t result in any changes to provincial laws. The changes had already been made.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that s. 15 requires same-sex marriage. Rather, it ruled that the proposed federal bill to implement same-sex marriage was consistent with s. 15.
If you actually want to know, you can look up the bits that confuse you. If you don’t, I’m not sure why you’re bothering to point this out.
I understand the word in the post, but I have no idea why it’s relevant to the thread.
Bumping the thread because…:
…the Texas Bar is investigating a disciplinary complaint against Paxton for this.
Based on this…
…Paxton doesn’t look squeaky-clean. Maybe he’s just building a track record for a run at the presidency.
It sounds like someone is sitting on the fence playing the no blame game who does not want to blame Red Necks.
Is it actually happening? Are registrars and clerks in Texas actually denying marriage licenses? Or is this (so far) only an abstract problem, where a politician has said something stupid, but no one is acting on it?
Having a “race to the bottom” with Alabama seems remarkably foolish.
I would love to get a copy of that list if it would be possible.
Here is a head scratcher: Susie Jones is a West Virginia resident and has bisexual tendencies. In 2004, she begins dating another woman, Jill and they travel to Massachusetts to get married. They live as a couple until 2008 when they split apart. Since West Virginia does not recognize SSM, they simple separate as a divorce is neither available nor necessary.
In 2011, Susie meets Bill and wants to marry him. West Virginia happily issues a marriage license as it does not recognize the Massachusetts marriage as valid. Susie and Bill are married and have two children.
Obergefell is handed down in June 2015 requiring WV to recognize all marriage licenses.
What if we change the facts a little and find out that Susie and Jill never really meant to get “married.” They did it on a lark and on the understanding that DOMA was in place, they never were going to live in MA, and relied on these laws to ensure that the marriage license was a fun piece of paper to get?
How does a family court judge sort this stuff out?
Out of curiosity, is this more complicated than other cases in which a contract signed in one state is invalid in another state? I imagine that contract law includes many such cases, but I don’t know.
It seems to me that the intentions and beliefs of the parties involved should matter. Unless there’s legal precedent to the contrary, here’s how I’d rule it:
The unjustness of a previous law should, upon its repeal, not be used to further penalize those oppressed by the law originally. Susie and Jill acted in good faith to get married, and were denied the good-faith opportunity to end their marriage in 2008. The state should recognize these facts and treat their marriage as though the state had originally treated them as equal citizens.
If you look up the scenario, you will find that Susie and Jill were considered to be married for the purposes of remarriage and had to seek a divorce. Some states allowed non-residents who married in that state to divorce there if they lived in states that would not allow for divorce.
It was not uncommon. It very much screwed over the couples, but they were not free to remarry until they dissolved the marriage.
I am not sure how a judge would sort it out. How about the same facts except there is no Bill. Susie and Jill split in 2008 and realizing that their marriage is not valid in WV and that there is no need for a divorce, they go about their separate lives. They do not keep in touch.
She meets Bob and they plan their wedding for August 6, 2015. Obergefell is handed down on June 26, 2015. If she marries as planned is she guilty of bigamy? Is her marriage to Bob valid?
What if Jill believes them to still be married, but Susie relied on DOMA and WV law to assure herself that the marriage was never legally valid? Many opposite sex couples separate for years without officially getting a divorce. Should Susie and Jill be assumed to still be married like those couples, or do we simply assume a divorce? Do we judge that on a case by case basis? What standards would be enough to prove that the couple meant to divorce?
Getting a divorce. Like I said, this happened quite frequently. Quite a few people were trapped in states where their marriages were not recognized so they could not divorce. So many that some states that allowed SSM allowed non-resident divorce. You are creating legal ambiguity where it does not appear to have existed.
I’ll ask. I expect a lot of them have now been resolved (or at least there is some trial-level guidance).
Well, yes. A marriage contract involves rather more rights and duties than other types of contract. Furthermore, it’s not a crime to enter a contract for, say, the sale of wheat that conflicts with an existing contract.