Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[only_human]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Just read only_human's last posting and apparently I am incorrect in suggesting that there were no practical differences in California between civil union and marriage. Apparently 9 have been identified. I stand corrected, thankyou.

You're welcome. The ninth difference might already be off the list as mentioned here: Putative Spouse Doctrine Applies to Domestic Partners—C.A. MetNews May 7, 2008

Because the putative spouse doctrine is not a right or obligation accorded by federal law, the California Constitution, or voter initiative—the only three exceptions to the rule that domestic partners have the same rights and burdens as married persons—it is not excluded from the rights granted and obligations imposed under the Domestic Partner Act, Fybel reasoned.

People are trying to do the right thing™. I think we remember miscegenation and segregation laws well enough to be a bit wiser when approaching new hurdles and that helps us understand that there was difference in using separate schools or water fountains.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

After reading only_human's post, I wonder something. Are the terms "confidential marriage" and "common law marriage" the same now? I ask because I don't think they are and wonder how the rule of common law marriages would apply to gay couples if at all. I think it should. For those of you who might possibly not know what a common law marriage is, it's basically, and I forget the number, but I think it's twice, you introduce the person you want to be your spouse to at least 2 different people as your spouse and they are automatically to be legally considered so.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/countyclerk_index.asp?id=5565
What is the difference between a Public and a Confidential marriage license?
If public: You can get married anywhere in the State of California, you need at least one witness during your ceremony, and the marriage record is made available to the public.

If confidential: You must be living together, getting married in the County where you purchased your license, no witnesses are required, and the marriage record is only available to the husband and wife.

http://www.sjgov.org/recorder/marriage.htm
Marriage Licenses

Requirements

* No blood tests are required
* You do not have to be a California resident to marry in California
* There is no waiting period between receipt of a marriage license and the ceremony
* No particular format for a marriage ceremony is required
* First cousins may marry in California
* Only an unmarried male and an unmarried female may purchase a license to marry in California
* "Common-Law" marriage and marriage by "Proxy" is not allowed in California

License Fees

* Public Marriage: $60.00
* Confidential Marriage: $70.00

Public Marriages

* Minimum age 18 years. Persons under 18 years of age with written consent of at least one parent (or guardian) AND permission from a California Superior Court may marry.
* Marriage License is required. The public marriage license may be purchased from any county clerk's office in California. The license is valid for 90 days from the date of issue.
* Marriage may be solemnized by any judge or retired judge; commissioner or retired commissioner of civil marriages; commissioner, retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record or a justice court in this state; by any judge or magistrate of the United States; by a priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination of the age 18 years or over.* A marriage may also be solemnized by a judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
* One witness is required.
* Anyone may purchase from the County Clerk in the county in which the license was issued a certified copy of the marriage certificate. The cost is $13.00 as of October 2001, and is subject to change.
* Marriage can take place in any County even if the license is purchased in San Joaquin County.
* If either party was divorced within the last year, a divorce certificate must be presented when applying for a license.
* To purchase a license, both parties must come in together with valid identifications.

Confidential Marriages

* Minimum age 18 years. Minors may not purchase a confidential marriage license.
* Marriage License is required. The confidential marriage license must be purchased from the County Clerk's office in the county in which the ceremony is to take place. The license is valid for 90 days from the date of issue.
* Marriage may be solemnized by any judge or retired judge; commissioner or retired commissioner of civil marriages; commissioner, retired commissioner or assistant commissioner of a court of record or a justice court in this state; by any judge or magistrate of the United States; by a priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination of the age 18 years or over.* A marriage may also be solemnized by a judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
* No witnesses are required.
* Only the parties to the marriage may purchase copies of the marriage certificate from the County Clerk in the county in which the license was issued. The cost is $13.00 as of October 2001, and the fee is subject to change.
* Marriage must take place in the County in which the license was purchased.
* If either party was divorced within the last year, a divorce certificate must be presented when applying for a license.
* To purchase a license, both parties must come in together with valid identifications.

* Members of a religious society or denomination not having clergy for the purpose of solemnizing the marriage must purchase a "License and Certificate of Marriage for Denominations Not Having Clergy" (VS 115)

NOTE: Applicants for a confidential marriage license must sign a statement attesting to the fact that they have been living together as husband and wife. The law does not specify a minimum duration of time living together.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Nonsense. Marriage was opened to same sex partners 4 years ago in the United States.

Yes, by judicial fiat. But the legislature works a little more slowly. There are still states who have not yet had an opportunity to vote on constitutional ammendments for example.

By suddenly deciding now that they want to figure out the implications they are having a devastating effect on those couples who have planned their weddings in California now that they thought they could.

They are "suddenly deciding now" only because the California SC suddenly decided now that the previous law was unconstitutional.

Can you imagine a more hurtful and vindictive thing to do?

Yes, I can. Forced quarantine. Commercials spouting hate. Murder.

Yes, and then we would make sure that gay couples retain their fitting sense of inferiority compared with their married straight friends. Your views are very clear.

I sincerely hope you didn't intentionally misconstrue my words to be preaching hate. Also, I would point out that I wasn't talking about my views, but rather pointing out that the California SC decision does exactly what many gay rights activists claim this isn't about; namely, legitimize their lifestyle choices.

But, I might as well make my own views known. I've reconciled myself to the fact that they are likely to be ridiculed on this board, and highly misunderstood, but so be it.

I believe that the dignity of marriage doesn't arise from the promise of two people to care for each other, although that is a dignified thing, commonly called friendship. Nor does the dignity and honor of marriage arise from the legalization/institutionalization of such commitments.

Instead, I believe that God desires other intelligences in the universe to grow and create as He does. I believe that one of the greatest callings in the world is to be a parent. I believe that God embodies spirits physically, male and female, and created the institution of marriage to protect and sanctify the sacred act of creating and bearing children. I believe that marriage is symbolic of, if not in likeness to, the creative works of God Himself, and it is this which gives marriage its greatness.

[Zeta-Flux]

SF Chronicle article on the request for delay.

Would it be so bad for California to grant the delay, at least with regards to marriages between non-residents?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Now, am I missing something, or is this just a cynical attempt to cause delay in California with implementing the supreme court's decision and ending the discrimination there? Because how is the situation for these states made any different now by the court ruling in California? Massachusetts opened marriage to gay couples in 2004 so I fail to see what these states think has changed from their point of view: they already potentially have same-sex couples with USA citizenship who have married in Massachusetts.

Mass. requires those getting married in their state to be residents of the state. California does not have a residency requirement. So, a couple of 18 year old boys could fly in from Texas and get married, fly home to Texas and try to get the legal rights of their marriage enforced. So, the California ruling will have a 'disruptive' effect on states that have laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. This is why several state's Attorney General's have petioned for a stay in the enforcement, until after the election in Nov., because there is a very real chance that there will be a measure on the ballot that will ammend the constitution of the state to define marriage. This would effectively nullify any marriages performed better June 17 and Nov.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

SF Chronicle article on the request for delay.

Would it be so bad for California to grant the delay, at least with regards to marriages between non-residents?

No, it wouldn't be that bad. Clearly this is an large, emotional and important issue and many people and states aren't ready for the possible consequences. My own feelings are that this is a magical moment for many people and I would like them to have it. I don't like rushing to judgments generally but also care that justice delayed can be justice denied. There are many wonderful articles about the excitement of people who want to see and be seen and be among the first involved in this momentous decision and I want to see them get their day.

California is often ridiculed for progressive approaches, sprout eating, Birkenstock and blue jean wearing, tree hugging and liberal leanings but I am proud to be a resident; I don't want to see us give up our ideals too often and mostly we don't.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new...rriage_ruling/

CONCORD, N.H.—New Hampshire no longer is asking the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed late Thursday, New Hampshire and nine other states said they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriages of gay residents who wed in California.

However, on Saturday, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte announced that New Hampshire was withdrawing from the request because the state addresses the recognition issue in its civil union law.

She said under the law, New Hampshire will recognize a legal gay marriage from California as a civil union.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Gay marriage is a completely new institution, unheard of in human history until quite recently

Human history ? Rather say western (Jewish, Christian and Islamic) history, and even then there have been exceptions (mostly for the nobility...) Of course you could dismiss the small tribes where there have been documented same sex marriages as anomalies, but not so long ago the whole world was constituted only by those small tribes !

Jacob

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Mass. requires those getting married in their state to be residents of the state. California does not have a residency requirement. So, a couple of 18 year old boys could fly in from Texas and get married, fly home to Texas and try to get the legal rights of their marriage enforced. So, the California ruling will have a 'disruptive' effect on states that have laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. This is why several state's Attorney General's have petioned for a stay in the enforcement, until after the election in Nov., because there is a very real chance that there will be a measure on the ballot that will ammend the constitution of the state to define marriage. This would effectively nullify any marriages performed better June 17 and Nov.

Massachusetts does not, I feel fairly safe in asserting, require same-sex couples to remain resident in that state for the rest of their lives after marrying there. Other states have therefore for the last 4 years had to deal with the "problem" of gay couples who married in Massachusetts moving into their state. It's the same situation as California now to all intents and purposes, and the only difference will be one of scale since couples are not required to be resident in California. If the "problem" with a couple moving from Massachusetts has occurred just once in these other states (a very conservative proposition) then the precedent is already there. Your comments on the ballot in November are very true and, as I stated earlier, very likely to be behind the strategic moves of these states which are petitioning for a delay.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I sincerely hope you didn't intentionally misconstrue my words to be preaching hate. Also, I would point out that I wasn't talking about my views, but rather pointing out that the California SC decision does exactly what many gay rights activists claim this isn't about; namely, legitimize their lifestyle choices.

It isn't about lifestyle choices. There is no choice in the matter: you do not choose to which people you are attracted and with which people you fall in love.

It is about the realities of human nature. The California decision is acknowledging those.

I don't think you are preaching hate exactly and I am fairly confident that you don't hate homosexual people at all, but I do think many of your arguments are based on an irrational set of ideals which do not square with human nature as it is.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

It isn't about lifestyle choices. There is no choice in the matter: you do not choose to which people you are attracted and with which people you fall in love.

I disagree. I disagree vehemently.

First, I disagree with you conflating the issue of natural attraction and biological predilections with that of intentional behaviors.

Second, I disagree with the plain meaning of your statement. Humans most certainly do choose whom they love. Even if you mean "sexual passion or desire" (the third definition for "love" at dictionary.com). Some struggle with controlling and shaping their desires more than others, but we all have agency and accountability. Just because my body reacts a certain way to stimuli does not dictate my choices.

Third, while I might not always control how my body initially reacts to stimuli, I most certainly can control to some degree how I shape those reactions, and bring them under my control. It isn't always easy, as any alcoholic or someone addicted to pornography will tell you, and not everyone faces the same initial reactions, but how one behaves in light of those reactions is clearly under one's control.

You almost certainly disagree with me that same-gender attractions should not be acted upon, but I find it surprising that you deny that such actions are a lifestyle choice. And not only because it seems obvious to me that you are consciously choosing to be with your partner, but because of my last point.

Fourth, you certainly do not want us to think you are merely a robot following a preprogrammed set of rules, and that your relationship with your partner is only a biological necessity. Or, even more drastically, you don't want us to view your predilections like those who are only attracted to young teenage girls, or cleptomaniacs who are chemically driven to steal, or cocaine babies who struggle against their addictions. I imagine you would describe your relationship as one freely chosen, by both partners. Yes, it was influenced by unchosen biological feelings, but not controlled by them. You chose to have a partner. You choose to continue to remain with said partner, despite biological programming to distribute DNA.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by only_human

No, it wouldn't be that bad. Clearly this is an large, emotional and important issue and many people and states aren't ready for the possible consequences.

only human, thank you for your reply and acknowledgement. I agree with what you said, and I understand how California wants to extend those things they feel are rights. Just to let you know, I lived in Berkeley for 5 years, and I loved my time there, modulo the people who would cross the street in front of my car as I was going 35 MPH under a *green* light! I recall seeing a march one time, and asked one of the marchers what the were protesting, and he said (I'm not kidding) "I don't know. I just joined along."