Sweden - Gay Marriage Now Legal In.....

[Reader]

Holder Sees Way to Curb Bans on Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/u...nt-have-to-defend-gay-marriage-bans.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.

Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but said that officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.

Six state attorneys general — all Democrats — have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to stand behind their state laws, even if they do not agree with them.

More at link.....

 

[bwt42]

Considering the decline of marriage in this county, in the near future gays may be the only ones getting married.

 

[Nova]

Considering the decline of marriage in this county, in the near future gays may be the only ones getting married.

Alas, we're not so different from straight people, I'm afraid. There's already an ugly "celebrity" divorce involving skater Johnny Weir and his husband.

Oy!

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

March 25, 2014 at 11:16 pm

Appeals Court extends stay in gay marriage case until arguments heard

Oralandar Brand-Williams/The Detroit News

Detroit — A three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay Tuesday that continues Michigan’s prohibition on same-sex marriages until formal arguments on the case are heard by the court.

When those arguments will be heard is uncertain.

Chief Judge Karen Caldwell and Judge John Rogers granted the stay with Judge Helene White, a former Michigan judge, dissenting.

In granting the stay, Caldwell and Rogers said among the factors they considered was whether the case had a chance of success on its merits; whether the state would suffer irreparable harm without it; where the public interest lies; and whether staying the decision would substantially injure other interested parties.

White disagreed, saying the state had not made the “requisite showing.”

The decision followed a flurry of filings Tuesday by attorneys for both sides...

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140325/METRO06/303250074#ixzz2x4nm6VdJ

 

[michmi]

I'm wondering how the people in our state of Michigan were able to marry so fast after the ban on gay marriage was lifted. A couple of opposite sexes who want to marry have a 3 day waiting period before they can marry. I read that the governor appealed the court decision. What if people marry and then the governor wins on appeal. Will they still be legally married?

Well, the county clerks opened their offices especially for this function and also waived the 3-day waiting period. Special, special. God knows if anyone else needed something from the clerk's office, we'd be held to the usual standards, plus throw in a few new things they pull out of their behinds to make it even more difficult.

There was no need to open and staff county offices on the weekend for this, and I say this as a taxpayer of one of the counties that did this.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Michigan won't recognize same-sex marriages from weekend

Gov. Rick Snyder won't recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed last weekend

Published On: Mar 26 2014 10:19:18 AM EDT Updated 1 h

LANSING, Mich. -
Michigan won't recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed last weekend before a court halted a decision that opened the door to gay nuptials, Gov. Rick Snyder said Wednesday.

The announcement came a day after an appeals court indefinitely stopped any additional same-sex marriages while it reviews a decision that struck down a 2004 law that says marriage only is between a man and a woman...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...marriage-licenses-issued-before-stay/25172224


March 26, 2014 at 2:51 pm

Snyder calls Michigan's same-sex marriages legal but couples can't get benefits during stay

Chad Livengood/Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Lansing — Gov. Rick Snyder said Wednesday 300 same-sex couples were legally granted marriage licenses Saturday in four Michigan counties but the unions can’t be legally recognized while a stay is in place in Michigan’s gay marriage lawsuit.

“We believe those are legal marriages and valid marriages,” Snyder told reporters at the Capitol. “...Although the marriages were legal, what the stay does is reinstate Michigan law. And under Michigan law, it says the state of Michigan will not recognize the fact that they’re married, because they’re of the same sex.”

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals halted weddings Saturday evening pending Attorney General Bill Schuette’s appeal of a federal judge’s Friday afternoon ruling overturning Michigan’s gay marriage ban...

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...-legal-couples-can-t-get-benefits-during-stay

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Michigan lawmakers: Give benefits to same-sex newlyweds

6 democrats asking U.S. attorney to recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages

Published On: Mar 27 2014 11:21:56 AM EDT Updated On: Mar 27 2014 11:31:18 AM EDT

DETROIT -
Six Democrats in Michigan's congressional delegation are asking U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed last weekend.

The marriages were completed before an appeals court suspended a decision that overturned Michigan's ban on gay marriage. The lawmakers want the government to treat the same-sex couples as legally married for the purpose of qualifying for federal benefits...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-lawmakers-give-benefits-to-samesex-newlyweds/25193058

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

sigh... just a matter of time now...

ETA: before this is no longer an issue... everywhere in the US. Hopefully. I want to say "there is no going back" but look at the backslide of some "other issues" in recent years.

 

[Nova]

sigh... just a matter of time now...

ETA: before this is no longer an issue... everywhere in the US. Hopefully. I want to say "there is no going back" but look at the backslide of some "other issues" in recent years.

Ain't it the truth!?

In my saner moments, I remember that gay rights have come farther in 45 years than anyone could have predicted! 59% of Americans now say they favor marriage equality (and that doesn't even count the Brits, Spaniards, et al.)!

Twenty years ago FOX cut away before the one gay character on prime time (on MELROSE PLACE) kissed his boyfriend. Now one can see same-sex characters being affectionate not only on fictional programs but in TV ads.

But you're right: social progress is sort of a two steps forward/one step back journey. And that's if we are lucky!

 

[Gardenlady]

Yes, just as there is a huge surge forward in gay rights, it feels like there's a huge push backwards in women's rights, especially reproductive rights. :sigh:

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

Yes, just as there is a huge surge forward in gay rights, it feels like there's a huge push backwards in women's rights, especially reproductive rights. :sigh:

yep, that's where I was going with that. Sad...

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

US recognizes Michigan same-sex couple marriages

Federal government will extend benefits to couples

Published On: 1 h Updated 52 m

DETROIT -
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has extended federal recognition to the Michigan marriages of about 300 same-sex couples that took place before a federal appeals court put those unions on hold.

Holder's action on Friday enables the government to extend eligibility for federal benefits to the couples. It came two days after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder said Michigan won't recognize the marriages performed last weekend. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down the gay marriage ban the day before...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...tended-to-michigan-samesex-marriages/25211272


March 28, 2014 at 10:00 am

U.S. recognizes Michigan's same-sex marriages

David Shepardson/The Detroit News

Washington — The U.S. government will recognize about 300 same-sex marriages that were performed in Michigan on Saturday before a federal appeals court issued a stay blocking further marriages pending a full review.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday the Justice Department has decided the couples are entitled to all federal benefits that other married couples receive. In January, he issued the same decision for about 1,300 same sex couples in Utah that were married during a 17-day window before the U.S. Supreme Court put a district court judge’s ruling on hold until further appeals are considered.

“I have determined that the same-sex marriages performed last Saturday in Michigan will be recognized by the federal government. These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages,” Holder said...

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140328/POLITICS02/303280065#ixzz2xGsngl4m

 

[Nova]

Yes, just as there is a huge surge forward in gay rights, it feels like there's a huge push backwards in women's rights, especially reproductive rights. :sigh:

Gardenlady, in my mind, there can't be one without the other, at least not for long.

Either the individual owns her body or the State does.

 

[Fluttershy]

The UK!

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/29/gay-couples-wed-same-sex-marriage

The law changed at midnight, with a number of gay couples vying to claim the title of being the first to be married in Britain by trying to time it perfectly so their vows were said just seconds after the clock struck midnight.

The prime minister said the reform was necessary because "when people's love is divided by law, it is that law that needs to change".

 

[bwt42]

An earlier post brought up society having to support children in a polygamous marriage since the state only recognizes one marriage. While we may all rejoice in the recent events allowing same sex marriage, marriage is on the way out & we must find a way to provide for the children being produced in what the courts could call "unstable relationships". A recent Pew report says only 26% of millennials are married. I read recently that 1/2 of people over 18 are married. Also recently, 75% of women go on welfare within 5 years of having a child out of wedlock. Therefore, in my opinion, society is already supporting a huge number of children from 2 person relations compared to the few that may result from polygamous committed relationships. jmo.

 

[Nova]

An earlier post brought up society having to support children in a polygamous marriage since the state only recognizes one marriage. While we may all rejoice in the recent events allowing same sex marriage, marriage is on the way out & we must find a way to provide for the children being produced in what the courts could call "unstable relationships". A recent Pew report says only 26% of millennials are married. I read recently that 1/2 of people over 18 are married. Also recently, 75% of women go on welfare within 5 years of having a child out of wedlock. Therefore, in my opinion, society is already supporting a huge number of children from 2 person relations compared to the few that may result from polygamous committed relationships. jmo.

You are not only right, but very kind not to mention that I was the author of the post in question. My logic was faulty.

More to the point are programs such as Social Security, where the benefits of one spouse can be inherited by the other. Legalizing polygamy raises the question of whether those inherited benefits are to be split among the surviving spouses (which will probably mean none of them earns enough to live) or whether one spouse has greater rights than others. Or does EACH and every spouse have a claim to full benefits--a sure way to bankrupt the SS program.

Similar problems arise when a polygamous spouse dies without a will. (It's a bad idea not to have a will even if you have ONE spouse, but lots of people put it off.) How are the deceased's assets to be distributed among the survivors. Does a surviving wife of 30 years have more claim than a new wife of six months?

If there is no medical power of attorney, which of the spouses makes decisions for an incapacitated husband? If there are more than two wives, do they vote, majority-rule style?

Etc. and so forth.

But back to your point: we are currently supporting the "illegitimate" offspring of polygamists because those "extra" wives are legally single. Legalizing polygamy won't fix that problem, but it won't make it worse.

***

On a legal basis, however, I think an attempt to legalize polygamy would be struck down by the courts on the ground that such marriages are inherently destabilizing to society.

We give birth to roughly equal numbers of females and males. (Yes, I know: slightly more females, but not statistically significantly so here.) Allowing males (and let's be honest, it's almost always males) to take multiple wives legally destabilizes society by creating a shortage of available females. (One need only look at Muslim societies that allow polygamy to see the result.)

The argument for marriage equality is that society is more stable when people pair up in loving and supporting marriages. Polygamy ensures the very opposite by creating a surplus of unmarried males.

 

[Karmady]

You are not only right, but very kind not to mention that I was the author of the post in question. My logic was faulty.

More to the point are programs such as Social Security, where the benefits of one spouse can be inherited by the other. Legalizing polygamy raises the question of whether those inherited benefits are to be split among the surviving spouses (which will probably mean none of them earns enough to live) or whether one spouse has greater rights than others. Or does EACH and every spouse have a claim to full benefits--a sure way to bankrupt the SS program.

Similar problems arise when a polygamous spouse dies without a will. (It's a bad idea not to have a will even if you have ONE spouse, but lots of people put it off.) How are the deceased's assets to be distributed among the survivors. Does a surviving wife of 30 years have more claim than a new wife of six months?

If there is no medical power of attorney, which of the spouses makes decisions for an incapacitated husband? If there are more than two wives, do they vote, majority-rule style?

Etc. and so forth.

But back to your point: we are currently supporting the "illegitimate" offspring of polygamists because those "extra" wives are legally single. Legalizing polygamy won't fix that problem, but it won't make it worse.

***

On a legal basis, however, I think an attempt to legalize polygamy would be struck down by the courts on the ground that such marriages are inherently destabilizing to society.

We give birth to roughly equal numbers of females and males. (Yes, I know: slightly more females, but not statistically significantly so here.) Allowing males (and let's be honest, it's almost always males) to take multiple wives legally destabilizes society by creating a shortage of available females. (One need only look at Muslim societies that allow polygamy to see the result.)

The argument for marriage equality is that society is more stable when people pair up in loving and supporting marriages. Polygamy ensures the very opposite by creating a surplus of unmarried males.

I'm starting to think that marriage, of any kind, should not in and of itself, confer any "benefits." jmo

 

[Nova]

I'm starting to think that marriage, of any kind, should not in and of itself, confer any "benefits." jmo

Read any of the court opinions overturning Prop 8. The justices do a great job of explaining the importance of legal recognition of civil marriage.

Myself, I didn't care much, one way or the other. My partner and I were together for 31 years before legal marriage became available to us. We only got married in 2006 because we thought it was a necessary political statement in favor of those who did want to marry.

HOWEVER, my now-husband and I are lucky to have accepting families on both sides. That is not true of many gay couples. And if, as you propose, there is no civil marriage, then such couples are not legally related to one another.

So that makes a parent or sibling (who may be extremely homophobic or otherwise hostile to her relative's gay partner) the closest relative to a gay person and in a position to overrule any decisions made by the non-legal "spouse".

It also allows the biological relatives of a deceased gay partner to claim that everything in the gay couples' shared domicile is the property of the deceased. Depending on the probate judge, the surviving "spouse" may have to produce proof that anything in the home belongs to him.

In states without civil unions for same-sex partners, scenarios such as those outlined above are not at all uncommon. I've lost count of friends over the year who were locked out of their homes, barred from the funeral, and had their joint-financial holdings confiscated just as they were trying to grieve.

Civil marriage may not be a perfect institution, but it's the most effective one we have invented thus far. All that is changing is the logical realization that what is beneficial to straight couples is equally beneficial to gay couples.

(I could write a post on the symbolic importance of same-sex marriage, something I didn't realize until we tied the knot. Whether or not getting married matter to ME, my marriage to my husband mattered very much to our children, grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews. But that's another story...)

 

[Nova]

BTW, at the moment, being legally married is costing me money on Obamacare because I have to include my husband as part of my legal family. He makes a lot more money than I and I would be heavily subsidized if I could file as a single individual.

But as the saying goes, "You got to take the rough with the smooth, baby."

 

[bwt42]

I'm starting to think that marriage, of any kind, should not in and of itself, confer any "benefits." jmo

I think if the trend continues of there being fewer & fewer marriages & child rearing becomes more a responsibility of the state (out of necessity) bestowing any "benefits to marriage" will become less politically tenable or important.