For My Buddy Grey One More Time - Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

[adios]

Is grey describing a civil union when he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic Party supports legal agreements that provide equal rights as married couples. So does the public by around 53-40 (as per the latest Pew poll).

[/ QUOTE ]

How do gay marriages differ from civil unions?

[tolbiny]

They use the term "marriage".

[etgryphon]

it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

The problem stems from the fact that Vermont starts issue marriage certs to same sex couples and then they move to texas, now all Texas laws that govern marriage must be applied to this couple whether the general populace wants to provide these marriage services to a same sex couple becuase of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. If however we create these things called Civil Unions for same-sex couples, each state can define what benefits that Civil Unions can be afforded. States like California and Vermont then can define a civil union to be the same as a marriage and treat their laws accordingly where another state like Texas can limit the benefits as they see fit for Civil Unions.

The problem with defining it a Marriage as as opposed to Civil Union is that one state and a minority of country can change all the laws of the land whether the people want it or not. It circumvents the whole democratic process.

-Gryph

[adios]

Thanks for the reply. Lawyers who've responded on this forum have offered differing views on the issues you bring up in your post btw.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

The problem stems from the fact that Vermont starts issue marriage certs to same sex couples and then they move to texas, now all Texas laws that govern marriage must be applied to this couple whether the general populace wants to provide these marriage services to a same sex couple becuase of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. If however we create these things called Civil Unions for same-sex couples, each state can define what benefits that Civil Unions can be afforded. States like California and Vermont then can define a civil union to be the same as a marriage and treat their laws accordingly where another state like Texas can limit the benefits as they see fit for Civil Unions.

The problem with defining it a Marriage as as opposed to Civil Union is that one state and a minority of country can change all the laws of the land whether the people want it or not. It circumvents the whole democratic process.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if the religious right ever utters the phrase "and then, we get screwed by the Constitution." Damn that Equal Protection thing...it's almost like we're all equal in terms of rights for each state...lol.

In all seriousness, the sad part about this whole gay marriage thing is that, in the minds of its opponents, to allow legal gay marriage would set things in motion to, one day, have a Baptist preacher marrying two men in the church, directly beneath the cross. Otherwise, I really don't know if you'd get such a violent reaction from these folks.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply. Lawyers who've responded on this forum have offered differing views on the issues you bring up in your post btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only other argument is that under equal protection clause we are treating same sex couples unfairly because they can't get married to the person that they love and that causes the conflict. It is a real slippery slope because then what about the guy whop wants to marry two women\horses\children can use the same argument. I'm not equating them as the same I'm just saying that one can use the smae logic.

Curious, what you understand is the opposing view from these lawyers?

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]


I wonder if the religious right ever utters the phrase "and then, we get screwed by the Constitution." Damn that Equal Protection thing...it's almost like we're all equal in terms of rights for each state...lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they usually just curse the left for using the judiciary to legislate law and reinterpret the Constitution as they see fit.

[ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, the sad part about this whole gay marriage thing is that, in the minds of its opponents, to allow legal gay marriage would set things in motion to, one day, have a Baptist preacher marrying two men in the church, directly beneath the cross. Otherwise, I really don't know if you'd get such a violent reaction from these folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

Having one state change the rules is tyrany of the minority which has been the case for far too long.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a real slippery slope because then what about the guy whop wants to marry two women\horses\children can use the same argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horses and children aren't capable of legally consenting. Polygamy is probably ‘slippier’, as are incestuous relationships.

Frankly, if someone wants to marry a few women, or their kinfolk, I'm more or less willing to let them have at it.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they usually just curse the left for using the judiciary to legislate law and reinterpret the Constitution as they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I was really just having a little fun. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

Having one state change the rules is tyrany of the minority which has been the case for far too long.


[/ QUOTE ] Well...I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but not legal ones. That said, what you seem to imply is that our only fair choices are a)do away with the Equal Protection Clause; or b)do away with marriage as a legal institution in this country.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either implication, nor any of your statements. I actually am undecided...it's certainly a point worth pondering. But...how could we possibly proceed with a) or b)...hypothetically, of course, since I think both of them have less chance of happening than total drug legalization.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

Well...I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but not legal ones. That said, what you seem to imply is that our only fair choices are a)do away with the Equal Protection Clause; or b)do away with marriage as a legal institution in this country.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either implication, nor any of your statements. I actually am undecided...it's certainly a point worth pondering. But...how could we possibly proceed with a) or b)...hypothetically, of course, since I think both of them have less chance of happening than total drug legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really... The answer is c) The judiciary does not have authority to define what marriage is only the legislature. I am against it on moral and legal grounds but I give more weight to it on legal grounds because of the implications to democracy. I don't really care if same-sex people are in love and do what ever it is that they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. When it begins to take a legal stance that is against democracy then i have a problem.

-Gryph

[tolbiny]

"Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature."

Except there is a baseline for what types of laws can be passed built into the constitution. Secondly- what if x number of states supported gay marriage, and y number were against it. States in group Y claim that no other state can allow marriage because of the equal protection act because it would then force them to accept it- so state Y is effectively pushing its values on state x. when does the blance of x verses y change enough for one side to have to admit defeat?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The only other argument is that under equal protection clause we are treating same sex couples unfairly because they can't get married to the person that they love and that causes the conflict. It is a real slippery slope because then what about the guy whop wants to marry two women\horses\children can use the same argument. I'm not equating them as the same I'm just saying that one can use the smae logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can solve the same-sex marriage "problem" without introducing a slippery slope to bigamy.

The 14th amendment states that *individuals* shall not be denied equal protection under the law. Not "couples" or any other group. This isn't a "gay rights" issue, it's an individual rights issue.

The thing is, alice is legally permitted to enter into a contract with bob, but charlie is forbidden to enter into the same contract with bob. Alice has a "protection" that Charile doesn't.

For these particular contracts, all parties are prohibited from entering into such a contract with more than one person simultaneously, so no equal protection is violated.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature."

Except there is a baseline for what types of laws can be passed built into the constitution. Secondly- what if x number of states supported gay marriage, and y number were against it. States in group Y claim that no other state can allow marriage because of the equal protection act because it would then force them to accept it- so state Y is effectively pushing its values on state x. when does the blance of x verses y change enough for one side to have to admit defeat?

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing here is that if a STATE legislature passed legislation that legalized gay marriage, I would have to consider that a valid democratic move and to be recognized by other states. I just have a problem with the judiciary manipulating the law to redefine marriage. I just don't think that there is enough popular support in any state to do this yet. California has come close, but it got Terminated...but, It'll be back...

-Gryph

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
For these particular contracts, all parties are prohibited from entering into such a contract with more than one person simultaneously, so no equal protection is violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I should add, if multiple parties *want* to enter into these contracts simultaneously, as long as *all* parties involved consent, why should anyone else care?

[etgryphon]

Here is a good explanation of the nuances with Supreme Court Case law and implications.

Interstate recognition of Marriage (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer03/interstate.html)

-Gryph

[ QUOTE ]
it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. States may refuse to give "full faith and credit" to the legal acts of other states that are offensive to the states' public policy. So the constitutional problem you cite is not really a problem. The equal protection clause is something else, but that already applies nationwide so it does not provide a basis for your worry that a single state can set nationwide marraige policy.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose christianity on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the atheist communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose christianity on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the atheist communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

1st amendment?

[Meech]

That pesky constitution always gets in the way /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[elwoodblues]

Could a state fail to recognize a divorce --- for example imagine that a state believes that one can only get divorced for specific reasons. Would they have to recognize a divorce in another state that where none of the three reasons were met --- I would suspect that they would have to recognize it even if they found it morally reprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing here is that if a STATE legislature passed legislation that legalized gay marriage, I would have to consider that a valid democratic move and to be recognized by other states. I just have a problem with the judiciary manipulating the law to redefine marriage. I just don't think that there is enough popular support in any state to do this yet. California has come close, but it got Terminated...but, It'll be back...

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

The California State Legislature passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, and Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.

[etgryphon]

Read the link in my other post and take a look at Loving v. Virginia. That is why one states change in law to marriage with be applied to other states. The question of the "full faith and credit" clause has not been appied to marriage yet and their hasn't been any cases on it to my knowledge. I gaurentee that would come before the court. It is the only and only concern about the who thing.

-Gryph

[ QUOTE ]
Could a state fail to recognize a divorce --- for example imagine that a state believes that one can only get divorced for specific reasons. Would they have to recognize a divorce in another state that where none of the three reasons were met --- I would suspect that they would have to recognize it even if they found it morally reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. Without doing a lot of research, I will say that it would likely come out as follows: If a state permits divorce (for reasons X, Y, and Z), then the concept of divorce is not repugnant to the public policy of that state. Therefore, if would have to give FF&amp;C to a divorce on other grounds from another state.

Now, if a state were to abolish divorce entirely, then it might well come out differently.

[ QUOTE ]
Read the link in my other post and take a look at Loving v. Virginia. That is why one states change in law to marriage with be applied to other states. The question of the "full faith and credit" clause has not been appied to marriage yet and their hasn't been any cases on it to my knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The law is actually pretty well established in this area and there have been plenty of cases applying the FF&amp;C clause in the context of marraige. There was one case I remember from the 1950s where a couple from North Carolina left their respective spouses, travelled to Nevada, stayed their long enough to establish residence under Nevada law, got divorces, got married to each other (legally in Nevada) and then went back to North Carolina. North Carolina prosecuted them for bigamy, successfully arguing in the Supreme Court that FF&amp;C to the Nevada marriage did not apply.

In general, the law is that marriages from other states will be recognized, but they need not be where they are against the public policy of the state (usually ascertained by whether there is a statute prohibiting such marriages). The scenario where one state legalizes gay marriage and the gay couples from every other state can just go there, get married, and have it automatically recognized is simply not the law, and hasn't been for a long, long time. Other scenarios present closer questions, but this one simply does not.

[PITTM]

christians seem to get more mad when "marriage" is used for gay couples. they need to differentiate them from themselves because theyve been convinced that people who are gay are evil by some fictional texts...

rj

[Matty]

How is this thread for me?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The law is actually pretty well established in this area and there have been plenty of cases applying the FF&amp;C clause in the context of marraige. There was one case I remember from the 1950s where a couple from North Carolina left their respective spouses, travelled to Nevada, stayed their long enough to establish residence under Nevada law, got divorces, got married to each other (legally in Nevada) and then went back to North Carolina. North Carolina prosecuted them for bigamy, successfully arguing in the Supreme Court that FF&amp;C to the Nevada marriage did not apply.


[/ QUOTE ]

Elliot,

I never said that the FF&amp;C has been used to solidify marriage. Period. Look again at the link and it confirms it. The main bearing in the case is Loving v. Virgina which is the most important case in the US Supreme Court. Both the Gay Marriage and the Interracial Marriage proponents use the Equal Protection Clause to advance their cause. The gay marriage proponents are using the same playbook that was used for interracial marriage proponents.

Chief Justice Warren wrote:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Now he was only talking about as it pertains to race and the 14th amendement, but the same reasoning is being used in the New England Supreme Court that not providing gay marriage or civil union is violating the Equal Protection clauses of the gay communittees.

[ QUOTE ]

In general, the law is that marriages from other states will be recognized, but they need not be where they are against the public policy of the state (usually ascertained by whether there is a statute prohibiting such marriages). The scenario where one state legalizes gay marriage and the gay couples from every other state can just go there, get married, and have it automatically recognized is simply not the law, and hasn't been for a long, long time. Other scenarios present closer questions, but this one simply does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not disagree with your analysis in one bit. It is just a stepping stone to overturn all the rules in the states. That is the only point that I am making.

Elliot, it just seems like you want to disagree on something...if I was unclear in my posts, I apologize and thank you for clarifying the issue.

Fact: FF&amp;C clause has not been applied either way to marriage certs for or against. I am just calling the line that with THIS particular move, I think we will see a case that brings to bear the FF&amp;C clause to bear in marriage. It is just a prediction and not settled.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this thread for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Proposal?

-Gryph

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
christians seem to get more mad when "marriage" is used for gay couples. they need to differentiate them from themselves because theyve been convinced that people who are gay are evil by some fictional texts...


[/ QUOTE ]

So it is only Christians who oppose gay marriage? Maybe you are correct. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton..all Christians, all oppose gay marriage.