This is a perfect illustration of why “leaving same-sex marriage to the states” is a dumb fucking idea:
The marriages of more than 170 gay couples from New York who wed in Massachusetts before last July are valid because New York had not yet explicitly banned same-sex marriages, a Massachusetts judge ruled.
…Although the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said in March 2006 that gay couples from states with no “express prohibition” of same-sex marriage could marry in Massachusetts, it was unclear at that time whether gay marriage was specifically banned in New York and Rhode Island.
Connolly ruled in September that gay couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts because laws in their state do not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage. Whether Rhode Island honors those marriages is an unsettled issue; its Legislature has rejected same-sex marriage but its attorney general issued a nonbinding opinion this year advising his state to recognize those conducted in Massachusetts.
So…those New Yorkers’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they’re still not legal in New York. And Rhode Islanders’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they are not currently legal in Rhode Island, but may be at some point. Is your head spinning yet?
Meanwhile, residents of Massachusetts who are legally married are not recognized as such by the federal government, so they are denied federal benefits like tax breaks and survivors’ benefits. And, naturally, a couple who resides in one of the few states recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions are required to stay there forever, lest they lose the legal recognition of their relationship and attached rights.
Seriously, we need federal equality for same-sex couples now. The tide won’t be turned back, and, as more states legalize recognition of same-sex partnerships, denial of equal rights on a federal level will just become yet another stupid issue we’ve got to fight over for a decade only to do what we could just do right now and be done with it.
Well, yes.
I would recommend a repeal of the federal DOMA followed by a lovely overturning by SCOTUS of one state’s ban on same sex marriage, thereby invalidating all laws prohibiting same sex marriage in every state. We did it with Lawrence v. Texas we can do it again!
Yeah, it seems likely to me too.
Just the federal DOMA repeal would be amazing and advance the cause forward.
At the present time it may also set the cause back by stimulating strong action on a federal marriage amendment banning gay marriage altogether.
Yes, this is a confusing hodgepodge, but it beats the hell out of being forced in Massachusetts to live my life in accord with the religious beliefs of a bunch of Christianist senators from the Bible belt and beyond.
So…those New Yorkers’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they’re still not legal in New York. And Rhode Islanders’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they are not currently legal in Rhode Island, but may be at some point. Is your head spinning yet?
Yes, indeed it is. And I hate the idea of my rights being kicked back and forth like a political football… valid one day, revoked the next…
…which is why my husband and I got married in Canada instead. It’s not legally recognized here in the states, but it feels symbolically more comforting to have it done someplace where the issue is treated with more dignity.
Arkades, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that marriage is recognized in Massachusetts.
Canadian marriages are potentially a legal kettle of fish because unless the federal DOMA is repealed Canadian same sex marriages will continue to be invalid in the US even if every state in the union authorizes same sex marriage. AND if you got married in Canada you can’t get married again in the US when it is legal until the DOMA is repealed and the Canadian marriage is recognized.
And it is a good idea to back up all of this with the appropriate powers of attorney for health care and finances and an estate plan even if married. Unless you are in VA where it will still be invalid.
Jeez.
so, when can i marry my partner in Florida?
screw it. i am sick of this shit. lets just outlaw ALL marriages until people start to look around and think “hey this isn’t fair.”
i mean come on, what does it take to straighten things out around here? do we have to nuke the planet from orbit and start over again? argh!
Arkades, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that marriage is recognized in Massachusetts.
Doesn’t matter one way or another. I don’t currently live in Massachusetts, and have no plans to move there. As for where I live now, under current law my state wouldn’t recognize the marriage regardless of where it took place.
Canadian marriages are potentially a legal kettle of fish because unless the federal DOMA is repealed Canadian same sex marriages will continue to be invalid in the US even if every state in the union authorizes same sex marriage.
Well, frankly, a repeal of DOMA sounds a lot more likely. I’m not holding my breath in any case.
And it is a good idea to back up all of this with the appropriate powers of attorney for health care and finances and an estate plan even if married.
Agreed, but it’s not like attorney’s fees are negligible or anything. Yet another reason that Separate Is Not Equal.
I’m with Shen — with a twist. Keep DOMA, but remove ALL property, visitation, custody, insurance rights, etc. from the institution of marriage.
Everyone who wants to visit someone in the hospital who is not a “blood relative” has to get legal power of attorney.
Everyone who wants to transfer money to their spouse pays gift tax, etc..
I’d be fine with that.
Canadian marriages are potentially a legal kettle of fish because unless the federal DOMA is repealed Canadian same sex marriages will continue to be invalid in the US even if every state in the union authorizes same sex marriage.
Ummm…wrong. Except for the purposes of federal taxes and bankruptcy, in which cases, MA marriages for couples in MA aren’t valid either.
And it is a good idea to back up all of this with the appropriate powers of attorney for health care and finances and an estate plan even if married.
It sure is. All the more so if, as is the case for all US same-sex couples, there is ambiguity about the status of your marriage based on your location .
What I don’t get is why someone hasn’t filed a separation of church and state suit about these anti-marriage laws. Why do Christians have their religious ceremonies granted a suite of legal benefits, while those of us belonging to more liberal churches (for whom gay marriage is just marriage, spiritually identical to heterosexual marriage) do not?
I honestly don’t get this.
Rana,
The short, Machiavellian answer is because 75+% of any population is going to get what it wants, if it wants it badly enough. Pols pander because it works, you know.
The official, legal reason is that SCOTUS has long ruled that the codification (or banning) of a specific behavior that happens to also be a religious ritual is just fine with them. That is, the feds can both ban religious duties (taking peyote, polygamy) and can enact laws that just ‘happen’ to coincide with religious dogma. Murder and theft are two non-controversial examples of the latter. The state need only produce a non-religious state interest that is served by the law, and (remember, this is very old case law, when they’d actually admit things like this) the state interest in straight marriages is the production of children for the war machine, the tax machine, and the work machines.
Is that all cynical b.s.? Of course; all government cloaks its base ends with soaring rhetoric. And so it goes.
Yeah.
I guess what I was really wondering is why no one is challenging the laws along those lines – you’d think someone would have tried, just to bolster the case against laws favoring certain religions’ rituals, coincidentally or not.
(But then, I’m also mystified by people who see impeachment entirely in terms of political tactics, instead of in terms of the law and legal obligations. I’m probably too literal for my own good when it comes to these things.)
(I also don’t have a problem with polygamy, if practiced between consenting adults, though that isn’t the position of my church.)