The Marriage Rights Thread

[allegro]

In the US a justice of the peace can marry people at a court house or at a venue. When you get married you sign a legal contract and you have a certain amount of time to have a ceremony (a religious one or with a justice of the peace). My parents got married at a court house with a justice of the peace (they had McDonalds afterward).

I always thought religion's only role, at the very core of it, was to provide a venue and a person to preside over the ceremony if so desired.

Absolutely correct. (A "justice of the peace" is a fancy old-fashioned word for judge.)

My first wedding was solemnized by a judge at a courthouse. My second wedding was solemnized by a dude on a ski slope at 10,000 feet altitude.

When you hear the words in most vows, "... and now, by the authority vested in me by the State of _____, I pronounce you ____" -- that person has been authorized to solemnize marriages in the State/County in which the marriage license was obtained. Each state's marital statute defines the marital laws.

For instance, in Illinois:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...6&ChapterID=59

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...SeqEnd=3000000

(750 ILCS 5/209) (from Ch. 40, par. 209)
Sec. 209. Solemnization and Registration.)
(a) A marriage may be solemnized by a judge of a court of record, by a retired judge of a court of record, unless the retired judge was removed from office by the Judicial Inquiry Board, except that a retired judge shall not receive any compensation from the State, a county or any unit of local government in return for the solemnization of a marriage and there shall be no effect upon any pension benefits conferred by the Judges Retirement System of Illinois, by a judge of the Court of Claims, by a county clerk in counties having 2,000,000 or more inhabitants, by a public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages, or in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, provided that when such prescriptions require an officiant, the officiant be in good standing with his religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group. Either the person solemnizing the marriage, or, if no individual acting alone solemnized the marriage, both parties to the marriage, shall complete the marriage certificate form and forward it to the county clerk within 10 days after such marriage is solemnized.
(b) The solemnization of the marriage is not invalidated by the fact that the person solemnizing the marriage was not legally qualified to solemnize it, if either party to the marriage believed him to be so qualified or by the fact that the marriage was inadvertently solemnized in a county in Illinois other than the county where the license was issued.
(Source: P.A. 95-775, eff. 1-1-09.)

State of California (my second wedding, at Heavenly, California side):

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=400-402

00. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of
the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any
religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or
retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired
commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this
state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United
States:
(1) A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme
Court.
(2) A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district
court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which
are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
(3) A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
(4) A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
(e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a
Member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while
that person holds office.

[Magtig]

This is actually going to the Supreme Court, so it should be a very interesting ruling. I really can't see how the SCOTUS won't rule for civil unions because of equal protection. I'm not a lawyer though.

They're also going to take up DOMA (prevents federal recognition of same sex marriage). This article spends a few lines speaking about all the different ways the court could rule, which was a bit of an eye opener for me:

However, because of the unique circumstances of the case -- in which rights were taken away after they were granted by the state Supreme Court -- the court's ultimate ruling may only apply to California.
Alternatively, the court may not rule on the right to marry at all: The Supreme Court will also consider whether the proponents of Prop. 8 have any standing in court. If they don't, then the Supreme Court would send the case back to the lower courts to be properly defended. However, California's governor and attorney general -- the parties who would typically defend Prop. 8 -- are certain to refuse to defend the law, which would mean the current lower court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage would be left standing.

I can't help but fantasize about the ridiculous celebrations in the street if the SCOTUS were actually to legalize same sex marriage nationwide. It's a nice thing to think about, but what are the chances they'll do it?

[allegro]

I disagree; I think this will be argued as a civil rights case and, on that basis, there's a pretty good shot at making DOMA unconstitutional.

Especially considering Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967).

[allegro]

This is so inspiring

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...court/1737387/

[playwithfire]

This is so inspiring

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...court/1737387/

If you've never seen the documentary that was made about her and her wife, I highly recommend it. Amazing women.

[littlemonkey613]

I think there's a big shot at declaring same sex marriage a constitutional right. If its ruled based on discrimination, it'd be hard to argue state's rights to define marriage. I just dont see any strong legal arguments from the other side from any angle. I think this is one of those things where the legal argument is astronomically weaker on one side. I don't think culture will dictate the ruling.

[kenthebear]

Not to be beaten, we in the UK have not only banned gay marriage but made it illegal in cofe churches. I'm so proud of my country.

[Highly Psychological]

Full Civil Partnerships have been legal since 2005 but I can guarantee you within 5 years Gay Marriage will be fully legal in the UK. They are just saying religious organisations that do not want to hold ceremonies should not be forced to.
There is significantly more power behind people backing Gay Marriage than opposed. I can feel that ferocious force. The whole process dealing with the religious organisations is understandably taking time.
In 10 years time this whole debacle will seem utterly absurd.

[Magtig]

Gay marriage opponents are going to present the SCOTUS with the argument that gay couples can NOT have unintended offspring which will become a potential burden to taxpayers and therefore Prop 8 should stand. WTSF? Is this some sort of crazy lawyer maneuver or is it grasping at straws?

[littlemonkey613]

Gay marriage opponents are going to present the SCOTUS with the argument that gay couples can NOT have unintended offspring which will become a potential burden to taxpayers and therefore Prop 8 should stand. WTSF? Is this some sort of crazy lawyer maneuver or is it grasping at straws?

It's weird things like this that truly bring out how wonky the legal institution of marriage is. Also this brings up one of the most disgusting realities that Americans refuse to talk about. Unintended pregnancy. We see it as a fact of life and part of women's natural processes as opposed to a litmus test for how little control women have over their own bodies and reproductive lives.

But yeah prop 8 proponents sure are getting desperate. I can't wait for them to realize its hopeless.

[M1ke]

I just wanted to pop in and say how proud I am that me country has not only had legal gay marriage for the past 8 years, but as of earlier this week we have our first openly-gay premier in Ontario.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windso...sor-pride.html

We've come a long way in the last decade.

[onthewall2983]

Illinois Senate passes gay marriage bill.

[snaapz]

I think it's a shame that anyone feels like they need a court or city hall document to prove that they are a couple and have vowed to be partners for life. If their love is real and comitment is true then go get some damn rings, have a ceremony with people to witness and move on. Fuck that government peice of paper... I truly don't get what the big fucking deal is. Are we so insecure that we need our partner to sign a legal document proclaiming their love and commitment?

SOLVED: Get some rings, call on your family, rent a hall, get catering and decor etc... have a ceremony, exchange vows and PUT THE RING ON. Make a will if you want and add your partner as a beneficiary. The government doesn't control who we love and cannot love.

If it's a religious ceremony (holy matrimony) you want then go see a preist. If the preist says no then re-evaulate your beliefs and values... I wouldn't want to be a member of a church that won't permit me to follow my good natured heart.

Can someone please explain? What am I missing? I'm getting married in 1 month... anyone can do it. Oh wait this is in the USA right, you all need legal documents for when you want to sue your partner for breaching contract? Is that it?

Go be happy and get married!!!

[Magtig]

Can someone please explain? What am I missing? I'm getting married in 1 month... anyone can do it. Oh wait this is in the USA right, you all need legal documents for when you want to sue your partner for breaching contract? Is that it?

You're invited to fuck right off with this self righteous bullshit. Congratulations on your marriage, especially since it's not something everyone has the RIGHT to do.

[icklekitty]

It's about equality, not the value of some pieces of paper.

[slave2thewage]

If straight people can blow a ridiculous amount of money on clothes, an overpriced meal and shitloads of booze, why can't I?

[allegro]

I think it's a shame that anyone feels like they need a court or city hall document to prove that they are a couple and have vowed to be partners for life. If their love is real and comitment is true then go get some damn rings, have a ceremony with people to witness and move on. Fuck that government peice of paper... I truly don't get what the big fucking deal is. Are we so insecure that we need our partner to sign a legal document proclaiming their love and commitment?

SOLVED: Get some rings, call on your family, rent a hall, get catering and decor etc... have a ceremony, exchange vows and PUT THE RING ON. Make a will if you want and add your partner as a beneficiary. The government doesn't control who we love and cannot love.

If it's a religious ceremony (holy matrimony) you want then go see a preist. If the preist says no then re-evaulate your beliefs and values... I wouldn't want to be a member of a church that won't permit me to follow my good natured heart.

Can someone please explain? What am I missing? I'm getting married in 1 month... anyone can do it. Oh wait this is in the USA right, you all need legal documents for when you want to sue your partner for breaching contract? Is that it?

Go be happy and get married!!!

When I got married I got my husband's health insurance, my husband's pension, my husband can collect my social security benefits, our estate planning is now cost-free, we file Federal taxes jointly, etc etc Denying these financial benefits (the original intention of marriage throughout history) to anyone is a violation of civil rights.

[DigitalChaos]

I think there's a big shot at declaring same sex marriage a constitutional right. If its ruled based on discrimination, it'd be hard to argue state's rights to define marriage. I just dont see any strong legal arguments from the other side from any angle. I think this is one of those things where the legal argument is astronomically weaker on one side. I don't think culture will dictate the ruling.

It's really fucked up that we have gotten to the point where rights have to be granted to citizens. The constitution was supposed to be about granting a small set of rights to the government. If it's not mentioned in the constitution it means you have the right.


Government should, ideally, be completely out of the whole marriage topic. If they aren't, then they need to grant the service/recognition to EVERYONE. Fuck the religious people who cry about sanctity of their religious beliefs. You lost all control over that the moment you asked the state to get involved in your personal lives. You want control back? Then pull your bullshit back into the walls of your church.

[icklekitty]

If straight people can blow a ridiculous amount of money on clothes, an overpriced meal and shitloads of booze, why can't I?

Imagine what gay marriage would do for the economy

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

It's really fucked up that we have gotten to the point where rights have to be granted to citizens. The constitution was supposed to be about granting a small set of rights to the government. If it's not mentioned in the constitution it means you have the right.

It's not really that fucked up. The government must recognize contracts if they are to be defended through law; those entering into a contract not recognized may have no legal recourse should such be needed. Marriage status is important in a couple dozen (at least) important legal situations. What's asked is that recognition be extended to male-male and female-female marriage contracts in addition to male-female.

[aggroculture]

Government should, ideally, be completely out of the whole marriage topic.

Corvus already answered this, but I want to state that I never understand what people mean when they say stuff like this.
It's like when Herman Cain kept repeating that government shouldn't be involved with abortion, and it was your "choice." The journalists would ask "So you think it should be legal then?" and he'd answer "no." What kind of choice is it to go get an illegal abortion?
So when you say "the government should be out of the whole marriage topic" this is simply a meaningless statement. How could it be out of the topic? The government is out of the topic of whether I want orange juice or apple juice for breakfast because the government is already totally in that topic by guaranteeing me that both choices are legal.

[Minpin]

I'm getting married in 1 month...

Hahaha if you aren't doing it exactly as you prescribed, you are the most disgustingly hypocritical cunt getting round. If you are foregoing all the legalese please ignore my insult, but if you aren't... Which is it?

I think it's a shame that anyone feels like they need a court or city hall document to prove that they are a couple and have vowed to be partners for life. If their love is real and comitment is true then go get some damn rings, have a ceremony with people to witness and move on. Fuck that government peice of paper... I truly don't get what the big fucking deal is. Are we so insecure that we need our partner to sign a legal document proclaiming their love and commitment?

You have brought up my most despised argument against legalising same-sex marriage. The arguments from religion are laughable and not registered, I don't respect religion, i couldnt give a shit about religious opinions. But your argument I hear time and again, from people whose ideas generally arent centuries outdated, and it irks me bad!

Even if the benefits between a homosexual de facto relationship are equal to a heterosexual marriage and the only difference is terminology - WHY DO YOU GIVE A FUCK?!

You're 'apathy' (which it really isn't, but for want of a better word) is almost always followed by the brain dead cop-out "there are so many more important things government should be focused on" which just infuriates me more.

If I've misconstrued your stance, I'm sorry, but if I haven't, I hate you.

[DigitalChaos]

Corvus already answered this, but I want to state that I never understand what people mean when they say stuff like this.
It's like when Herman Cain kept repeating that government shouldn't be involved with abortion, and it was your "choice." The journalists would ask "So you think it should be legal then?" and he'd answer "no." What kind of choice is it to go get an illegal abortion?
So when you say "the government should be out of the whole marriage topic" this is simply a meaningless statement. How could it be out of the topic? The government is out of the topic of whether I want orange juice or apple juice for breakfast because the government is already totally in that topic by guaranteeing me that both choices are legal.

First, explain how the government guarantees that orange and apple juice are legal.

[aggroculture]

There's a variety of government agencies that regulate food: the FDA, Dept of Agriculture, etc. A quick internet search suggests there are 15 such federal agencies.

[Jinsai]

I'm also curious as to whether or not Snaapz is getting married in an unofficial ceremony that is not legally recognized, Braveheart-style.

[DigitalChaos]

There's a variety of government agencies that regulate food: the FDA, Dept of Agriculture, etc. A quick internet search suggests there are 15 such federal agencies.

That doesn't grant you the right to the food. That's just oversight into the quality of the food that is made for sale. You would still be able to drink your juice without the regulation. Hell, you can grow your own fruit and press your own juice and have completely unregulated juice, and it's still legal!

Your right to fruit juice is implicit. Your right to associate and form any relationship you want with others is also implicit. The moment the government decided to get involved in marriage, they created an explicit definition. Now, you are fucked if you don't match that definition. This shit always happens when government get involved.

Removing government from marriage is going to be pretty damn hard at this point. Marriage status is integrated into so much. The right thing to do, for now, is widen the explicit definition of marriage to include any two people. What about the people who choose to be involved with more than 1 partner? That would probably give an unfair financial benefit to those people. Though, a married couple has an unfair financial benefit over two single people. I would like to see a long-term process that involves removing the integration of marriage status. Tax benefits, insurance dependency etc. it's all bullshit that shouldn't be tied to marriage status.

[aggroculture]

You are kind of missing my point. You can grow oranges and make your own juice (though you may not sell it without adhering to the regulations).
But you may not grow marijuana and eat pot brownies for breakfast without considerable risk.
Saying "oh you can do anything, legal or not" is not giving any kind of meaningful choice. It's a red herring in the argument for same-sex marriage.
The issue is that heteronormative marriage discriminates against same-sex couples. Calling the benefits married people receive "unfair", and arguing against marriage in general, is again, besides the point. The best way, as you seem to agree, since marriage itself isn't going anywhere any time soon, is to make marriage more inclusive, and take it from there.

[DigitalChaos]

I'm not missing the point. You wanted to understand how "get the government out" makes sense. I'm explaining it! You generally have more freedom by keeping the government out of the picture. You need to be very selective in government involvement.

Marijuana growth and consumptions was an implicit legality. The government got involved and explicitly outlawed it. That is also bullshit. The government needs to end the drug war.

See the recurring pattern? You can, implicitly, do whatever you want until the government gets involved and starts explicitly defining freedoms. This needs to be the foundation though (what the US Constitution was meant to be). Once you start pulling the government into the picture and relying on it, it becomes much harder to just remove them in any rapid way.

[littlemonkey613]

I would like to see a long-term process that involves removing the integration of marriage status. Tax benefits, insurance dependency etc. it's all bullshit that shouldn't be tied to marriage status.

This is my dream world as well! I think gay marriage is a necessity as long as marriage plays such a big role in our society and federal government but I'd like to see it phased out. I don't want "marriage" to be a thing in the government at all....I think its ridiculous...Sexual contracts within government dear god WHY (and thats the tip of the ice berg for me).

[DigitalChaos]

This is my dream world as well! I think gay marriage is a necessity as long as marriage plays such a big role in our society and federal government but I'd like to see it phased out. I don't want "marriage" to be a thing in the government at all....I think its ridiculous...Sexual contracts within government dear god WHY (and thats the tip of the ice berg for me).

Absolutely. I am straight, married, and have a kid. I really would have preferred to not register my relationship with the state but... well Penn Jillette sums it up perfectly: