U.S. Supreme Court to Decide If States Can Ban Gay Marriage

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/supreme-court-to-decide-if-states-can-ban-gay-marriage/ar-AA8gjVE?ocid=DELLDHP

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yawn.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Limehouse]

What possible reason could a state or a nation have for prevent two people from being joined in a loving union? What harm can it do to allow two people who love each other, respect each other and honour each to be joined in a blessed union?

There are far worse things a couple could be doing, such as robbing banks, mugging old ladies, conducting acts of terrorism, beating and starving small children and so on...

[Errata]

What possible reason could a state or a nation have for prevent two people from being joined in a loving union? What harm can it do to allow two people who love each other, respect each other and honour each to be joined in a blessed union?

There are far worse things a couple could be doing, such as robbing banks, mugging old ladies, conducting acts of terrorism, beating and starving small children and so on...

Civil marriage exists solely for the purpose of uniting two people in order to have an uninterrupted flow of combined monies and property to their offspring. Gay couples are incapable of having genetically combined offspring. The purpose of a state sanctified marriage disappears. Of course, I'm in the same boat as them since I can't have kids, and never wanted to. There is no point in me running off and getting permission from the state to marry either. But I'm allowed. I'm for gay marriage, and if they want the state to get involved they should be able to. I just think it's better if the state is nowhere near the act of marriage.

[jmenges]

Civil marriage exists solely for the purpose of uniting two people in order to have an uninterrupted flow of combined monies and property to their offspring. Gay couples are incapable of having genetically combined offspring. The purpose of a state sanctified marriage disappears. Of course, I'm in the same boat as them since I can't have kids, and never wanted to. There is no point in me running off and getting permission from the state to marry either. But I'm allowed. I'm for gay marriage, and if they want the state to get involved they should be able to. I just think it's better if the state is nowhere near the act of marriage.

Just to clarify- In the US you don't have to be married to have property with a right of survivorship passing over to a person of the same sex. A gay couple can acquire property together as joint tenants as easily as a straight married couple (or two or more single people for that matter) and pass it onto the surviving partner since the marital status of the Grantee does not have to be indicated on a deed, only the Grantors, and only in States where a spouse automatically has an interest in acquired property. With Gay couples, the problem arises when they are married in a state which conducts same-sex marriages and they attempt to mortgage or sell a property that lies in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages since marital status is required on mortgages and the Grantors marital status is required on deeds. And so, since a gay married couple cannot identify themselves as husband and husband or wife and wife to take out a mortgage or sell property in such states, an acceptable work around that is occurring today in states that do not recognize same sex marriages is leaving the marital status off of such documents as long as the couple sign and record a legal affidavit stating that, while they do not consider themselves single, they swear to the fact that they are not married to anyone else (meaning anyone of the opposite sex). Transferring property to offspring or whoever else you wish to legally inherit the property when you die is easily done by a Transfer on Death deed and no issues about marriage would hamper this since its almost a given that one spouse would precede the other in death, making the grantor a single person anyway.

JM

[Errata]

Just to clarify- In the US you don't have to be married to have property with a right of survivorship passing over to a person of the same sex. A gay couple can acquire property together as joint tenants as easily as a straight married couple (or two or more single people for that matter) and pass it onto the surviving partner since the marital status of the Grantee does not have to be indicated on a deed, only the Grantors, and only in States where a spouse automatically has an interest in acquired property. With Gay couples, the problem arises when they are married in a state which conducts same-sex marriages and they attempt to mortgage or sell a property that lies in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages since marital status is required on mortgages and the Grantors marital status is required on deeds. And so, since a gay married couple cannot identify themselves as husband and husband or wife and wife to take out a mortgage or sell property in such states, an acceptable work around that is occurring today in states that do not recognize same sex marriages is leaving the marital status off of such documents as long as the couple sign and record a legal affidavit stating that, while they do not consider themselves single, they swear to the fact that they are not married to anyone else (meaning anyone of the opposite sex). Transferring property to offspring or whoever else you wish to legally inherit the property when you die is easily done by a Transfer on Death deed and no issues about marriage would hamper this since its almost a given that one spouse would precede the other in death, making the grantor a single person anyway.

JM

The major problem lies with rights of survivorship and medical proxy, both of which are automatically conferred on a spouse. In a civil union the state has the option to not recognize both rights, usually when a disapproving parent is still alive. I live in a state where no members of any civil commitment are automatically granted either right. In theory they get it, until a surviving family member asks for it at which point the partner has to sue to get it back. It is respected in some hospitals, and not in others. In fact I live in a state that got rid of common law marriage specifically so those rights would not be conferred on a member of a couple who were not legally wed. And every gay couple who has sued for these rights has lost. And a ton of people die intestate.

[jmenges]

The major problem lies with rights of survivorship and medical proxy, both of which are automatically conferred on a spouse.

Right of Survivorship (of Real Estate anyway) is not automatically conferred on a spouse unless they have a joint tenancy deed. If they are in title as tenants in common only, then the property automatically transfers to the decedents' "estate", or "next of kin" and the surviving spouse, gay partner, or whomever they shared title with, would have to take the issue into a Probate Court. This applies gay or straight. If a gay couple owned property as joint tenants then no matter what the law concerning same-sex marriage is, the property would transfer to the other title holder, i.e. the gay persons partner. It is up to every property owner to make sure they understand what type of deed they hold title in and get all their ducks in a row before they die to save their survivors from going through the courts.

I agree with you that medical proxy is a huge issue that needs dealt with, but real estate issues are ones that can be sorted out regardless of sexual orientation as long as the property owner knows what they're doing.

JM

[Limehouse]

Leaving aside legal difficulties concerning property and so on, in a nation that has freedom at the centre of its constitution, a nation that has no established church, what possible reason could a state have for banning gay marriage?

[c.d.]

Hello Julie,

It would be because it goes against the religious or personal views of the majority of the people in that particular state. Also some politicians want to pander to those people to gain their support.

c.d.

[Errata]

Leaving aside legal difficulties concerning property and so on, in a nation that has freedom at the centre of its constitution, a nation that has no established church, what possible reason could a state have for banning gay marriage?

For violating "God's law"?

I live in a red state.

But the state/country/shire/kingdom etc. only ever got in the business of marriage in the first place because of the legalities. It's a contract. And some religions have never wavered from the idea that it is a contract. If you ever go to a Jewish wedding you will not see the couple wed. You will see them blessed after the fact, because they are married as soon as both parties sign the contract in private before the ceremony.

The contract is that the two parties will unite all properties and pass the united properties down to their children. All marriage is based on this. It is the entire point of polygamous and polyandrous marriages. It's why all marriages were arranged until relatively recently.

Marriage saves the state money. We don't have to spend resources dispersing property for married people. We don't have to appoint guardians, we don't have to care for the offspring if a parent dies, we don't have to get involved in any way of the business of married people. We give married couple a theoretical tax break for saving us that time and money. We reward that behavior.

We have absolutely no provisions for getting married for love. We have no provisions for marrying people who will be childless. The entire argument on interracial marriage was racist and born of genuine disgust, but the problem was that since blacks and whites were treated differently under the law, there was no provision for a contract that applied equally to both. So there could be no marriage. Never mind that there were massive inheritance problems with mixed race children. Mixed marriages didn't solve the state's problems, so they were illegal. The same with gay marriage. And childless marriages even to this day are so disbelieved that there is no problem with a couple getting married, since no one believes that they will actually remain childless. And since infertility is a thing, most problems caused by a childless couple have fixes already in place.

But the state never signed up for dealing with love. That's our business, not theirs. Marriage isn't about love. It's about contracts. And if the contracts don't apply to you, why should they bother with allowing your marriage? It doesn't benefit them.

[Limehouse]

I agree totally with everything you have stated Errata. And the point is, in a nation where freedom is central to its constitution and religious freedom is valued, fundamental religious dogma is often at work when state laws are formulated.

[Ally]

Let's be clear here though. The UK only started having legalized gay marriages last year. And I am pretty sure it's still not legal in North Ireland. Gay marriage was first legalized in parts of the States in 2004 - over a decade ago.

So I think the bafflement as to why a legislature wouldn't have it legalized is a bit disingenuous considering England only started allowing same sex marriages last year, the whole of the UK is still not onboard, and we've been rolling them out over here for over ten years. Yes some of our states are backwards, but we've had legal marriages for much longer than the UK has and we have close to 3/4 of the States now with legal gay marriage.

Perhaps these questions should be addressed to North Ireland also?

[Limehouse]

Let's be clear here though. The UK only started having legalized gay marriages last year. And I am pretty sure it's still not legal in North Ireland. Gay marriage was first legalized in parts of the States in 2004 - over a decade ago.

So I think the bafflement as to why a legislature wouldn't have it legalized is a bit disingenuous considering England only started allowing same sex marriages last year, the whole of the UK is still not onboard, and we've been rolling them out over here for over ten years. Yes some of our states are backwards, but we've had legal marriages for much longer than the UK has and we have close to 3/4 of the States now with legal gay marriage.

Perhaps these questions should be addressed to North Ireland also?

I absolutely agree Ally, the USA is decades ahead of the UK not only in allowing gay marriage but in actually embracing the whole gay community and certain states have a very long history in celebrating gay unions in one form or another.

It is surprising, therefore that some states are still so reluctant to recognise gay marriage, although I realise that these are states in which there is a high level of religious observance and it is this that perhaps drives the policies and the policy makers.

I am not sure about Northern Ireland (although I jolly well should be) but I am pretty sure that the rest of Ireland itself has not and will not, in the near future, allow gay marriage. This is because, in the Uk and in Ireland, the established church has an official role in law-making.

Additionally, despite gay marriage being legal, I believe that no church or church minister can be compelled to conduct a gay wedding so, as you state, we still have a long way to go.

[Robert]

I have the solution :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ONRt9ER6Y

[Limehouse]

I have the solution :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ONRt9ER6Y

Hi Robert, I'm impossible to live with, so I could never have married me!